Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: One again I remind hon. Members that when they are called for a supplementary question it should be one question, and I remind Ministers that they are not obliged to answer more than one.

SCOTLAND

Sheepmeat

Mr. Myles: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give consideration to methods by which the market for sheepmeat in Scotland can best be stabilised.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): The Government have done so, and negotiations for a Community market organisation for lamb have now virtually been completed. We shall have a full deficiency payment scheme financed entirely from Community funds, which will assure producers of a substantial increase in their returns this year and, I believe, of a secure future. This stabilisation of the market will also benefit the consumer, because adequate supplies of home-produced lamb will be assured at reasonable prices.

Mr. Myles: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among Scottish store sheep producers that this regulation will not operate before the autumn lamb sales?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I am aware of that, and I appreciate their concern. I very much hope that negotiations with New Zealand will be completed in time to implement the regime before the main autumn store sheep sales, but if they are

not I hope to be able to indicate by then when the regime will be implemented, so as to minimise the uncertainty.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that the market could be improved by a review of the Meat and Livestock Commission's grading regulations, which have been in force since 1945? As the public taste has changed in favour of leaner meat, hill sheep farmers are losing because of these regulations not being brought up to date.

Mr. Younger: I am aware of that problem. The Meat and Livestock Commission, in conjunction with my right hon. Friends, is looking into the matter.

Mr. Lang: I assure my right hon. Friend that the new arrangements have been well received by the sheep farmers in my constituency. May I press upon him the need to take full advantage at the end of the year of the increased maxima in the hill livestock compensatory allowances, which will be needed to continue the restoration of confidence in this sector?

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. That is also my experience. We shall, of course, look at this matter in the autumn, as we have undertaken to do.

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiation on Scottish teachers' pay.

Mr. Younger: Statutory responsibility for negotiating teachers' pay rests with the Scottish teachers salaries committee, and it is not for me to intervene. I understand that at a meeting on 4 June the teachers rejected an offer of 14 per cent. with effect from 1 April. The committee is to meet again tomorrow.

Mr. Steel: To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that his allocation of 13 per cent. in the rate support grant ties the hands of the negotiating committee? Will he allow it to go to arbitration and accept a higher figure? In the absence of a pay policy, how does he expect the teachers to accept 14 per cent. when the rate of inflation is 22 per cent. and the rate of wage settlements is 20 per cent?

Mr. Younger: The figure that the right hon. Gentleman quoted is not correct, and in any case the allowance made in the rate support grant order was greater than that, and it also took into account the allowances for the Clegg awards. With regard to the details of the negotiations, the last thing that anyone would want me to do would be to lay down how they should turn out. I have told the local authorities how much money is available to them, and it is up to them to negotiate.

Mr. John MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend realise that one way in which to prevent the post-Houghton decline that happened under the previous Labour Government is for the negotiators to agree to pay 18 per cent., but with effect from 1 July, and thus keep the total wage bill for the year at 14 per cent.?

Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend has said about the progress of teachers' pay during the last few years. The second part of what he said is, of course, a matter for the negotiating committee.

Mr. Strang: The Secretary of State cannot escape his responsibilities here, Does he accept that there is no point in Governments appointing Clegg and Houghton commissions, and accepting their findings if, between times, teachers do not receive the going rate? Is he further aware that it is clear from Government statements on public sector salaries that, if teachers do not get a fair deal this year, they will find it very much more difficult to get one next year?

Mr. Younger: It depends upon what the hon. Gentleman means by the going rate, but the negotiating committee and the local authorities concerned must decide how much they can afford to pay.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a positive step forward that the management representatives have dropped their previous requirement on conditions of employment with respect to out-of-school hours which caused a great deal of irritation to the teaching profession?

Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend says, but as I am not part of the negotiations that matter must be left for them.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Why does the Secretary of State continually try to deceive people into believing that he is not part of the negotiations? What instructions is he giving to his representatives on the management side of the STSC? Why does he not have the decency and courage to say that he does not want a settlement above 14 per cent., instead of hiding behind the charade of it not being his responsibility?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, there are two representatives from my side who attend the meetings, but they are in no sense able to dominate what goes on, nor do they seek to do so. As the hon. Gentleman must appreciate, the amount of money available for paying teachers is what the local authorities have available, taking account of what the rate support grant provides and what their own rate income provides. That is what is available, and they will decide what they can afford and wish to pay.

Mr. Ewing: What are the Secretary of State's representatives instructed to do at these negotiations?

Mr. Younger: Those representatives are present to represent the interests of my office, but they are in no sense part of the negotiations, except as two people among those present. The responsibility here is with the local authorities to decide what they wish to pay.

Education (Parental Choice)

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Lothian regional council in response to his consultative document on parental choice in education.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Lothian regional council's reaction was that is was, in principle, totally opposed to the parents' charter on the ground that it was an attack on the concept of comprehensive education. I reject that imputation. I fail to see how the concept of comprehensive education in Lothian region would be threatened by the granting of reasonable applications from parents for the school of their choice.

Mr. Ancram: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the


Lothian region education authority is still turning down reasonable applications for transfer to schools in which places are available? Is not this authority's attitude intolerable, especially as it is now playing cynical politics with the prospects and lives of young children?

Mr. Fletcher: There is ample evidence that Lothian region disregards the preference of parents when appeals are made about transfers. Despite the fact that under the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, it is required to see that children are educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, the authority makes little effort to comply with that legislation.

Small Businesses

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the principal agencies and schemes operating in Scotland to encourage the development of small businesses ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Small firms are eligible for assistance under the Industry Acts. In addition, a range of advisory and financial services is provided specifically for small firms in Scotland through the following main agencies : the small firms information centre of my Department, the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Tourist Board. The Manpower Services Commission has sponsored courses for small firms and people starting in business. A number of voluntary and other bodies, including chambers of commerce, provide important services for small businesses.

Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the small business sector appreciates the help that the Government are giving to it, but that there is particular concern about the level of interest rates? If these were reduced, not only would that reduce the influx of foreign money, which would help to control the money supply, but it would help to bring down the rate of exchange as well as giving encouragement to the small business community.

Mr. Fletcher: The Government are aware of the difficulty caused by the high rates of interest, but the No. 1 priority must be the fight against inflation, of which high interest rates are a symptom.

Mr. Grimond: Has the Scottish Office received a copy of a booklet entitled "Creating Jobs Through Community Enterprise" by Mr. John Pearce of the Paisley college of technology? If not, may I send the Minister one?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes. thank you very much.

Mr. Lang: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems that small businesses are facing is that of high and increasing local rates? Does he agree also that the activities of spendthrift local authorities are effectively destroying jobs in small businesses?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is right. One of the strongest complaints that the Government receive concerns the number of businesses that are struggling to keep going, not so much because of high interest rates, but because of the burden of local authorities' rate increases in Scotland, which is destroying jobs.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman note what the CBI has stated, if he will not take note of hon. Members? It has stated clearly that unless interest charges are reduced as rapidly, and by as much, as is humanly possible there will be more liquidations? Is he aware that every day small businesses in Scotland are going into liquidation because of the Government's policy on public expenditure? Will he, for once, change the Government's policy and do something about the problem?

Mr. Fletcher: I cannot say too often to the hon. Gentleman that the No. 1 priority of the Government must be to reduce the rate of inflation. When that has been achieved, interest rates will fall.

Assisted Area Status

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to make a decision on the status of the areas which have been affected by oil-related industries in relation to the assisted areas which have to be decided by him before August 1980 ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: The changes to be made this August in assisted area status in areas affected by oil-related developments are as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry last


July. For those areas which are being downgraded by more than one step there will be, as has already been announced, a review in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time before the final step is taken in August 1982.

Mr. McQuarrie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is widespread concern in the Grampian region, particularly in my constituency, about the threat of the removal of assisted area status, especially in respect of the highly specialised large and small firms that have come into the area? Will he have a further meeting with local authorities and other interested parties before removing assisted area status from these areas?

Mr. Younger: I note my hon. Friend's concern, which he has expressed to me on many occasions. I am aware of the case put by the Grampian region. There will be a further review of the situation, as my hon. Friend requests, before the final step is taken to alter the assisted area status.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Levenmouth area will be deprived of its special development area status in August? Unemployment in that area is presently over 13 per cent. and rising, and an even greater number of redundancies have recently been announced. Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Secretary of State for Industry to see that the Levenmouth area has its special development area status restored by August?

Mr. Younger: I know the position there, and it causes me some concern as well. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be in touch with my right hon. Friend about it. This is a matter which was decided in last July's review, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will raise the matter again with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving grants on an industry basis rather than on a geographical basis? The latter is not always beneficial.

Mr. Younger: I note that suggestion. Parts of the regional aids are provided on an industry basis under section 8 of the Industry Act, but the real aim of regional policy is to bring special help to areas in which there are high levels of unem-

ployment. That is the theme of the whole policy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite the unanimous view of, and a deputation to the Department of Industry from, every local authority in the Grampian region, and of virtually every Member of Parliament for that region, it has been confirmed that the development area status will be changed in August, in advance of the special study that he announced with a great fanfare on 17 July of last year, saying that there would be a special study of the effect of oil-related industry? Is not that inquiry a sham, bogus and a hoax on the people of the North-East of Scotland?

Mr. Younger: No, the hon. Gentleman is not correct about that. If regional policy means anything, it means the concentration of help where the need is greatest. The fact is that in the Aberdeen area in May 1980 the unemployment rate was 3·9 per cent., compared with a Great Britain figure of 6·1 per cent., and a higher figure than that for Scotland.
I hope that the special study will be complete by the spring of 1981. We shall then look at its recommendations. Its objective is to look at the effect on indigenous industry of oil-related developments in those areas, and I hope that it will prove a most interesting report.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most important oil-related developments is contained in the decision of his right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on the gas-gathering system for the northern area of the United Kingdom continental shelf? Will he give, as soon as possible, his views on how that system will operate?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, I, too, am extremely interested in this exciting project. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement shortly.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage for increases in teacher's salaries was used in the rate support grant settlement for 1980–81.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Separate


provision for individual pay settlements is not made within the cash limit total.

Mr. Lambie: When will Ministers come clean and give an honest answer about public sector salaries? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although specific figures are not given, the Government have given an overall figure of 13 per cent. for increases in public sector salaries? If the Government do not increase the percentage given in the rate support grant, how can Scottish teachers gain an increase of 18·6 per cent., without incurring a substantial increase in the rates? When will the Government increase that percentage?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's assumptions are wrong. The figure of 13 per cent. relates to overall cost increases. Pay is only one factor.

Mr. Henderson: Whatever the precise amount provided for teachers' pay in the rate support grant, is it not more realistic than the amount provided by the previous Labour Government? Is not my hon. Friend surprised that, although the Clegg award has just restored the five-year erosion of the Houghton awards, teachers have chosen to disrupt classrooms within a month of that settlement?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that in the last year of the previous Labour Government an allowance of 5 per cent. was made for average salary increases. That figure was unrealistic. My hon. Friend is also right to say that industrial action by teachers is unlikely to help their cause, which will be judged on its merits alone.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Minister aware that earlier when I used the figure of 13 per cent. the Secretary of State said that it was wrong? What is the right figure?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that no specific figure was allowed for individual pay settlements. An overall figure of 13 per cent. was allowed for cost increases. That figure includes a special figure of 6 per cent. for comparability awards. The amounts to be settled in individual cases will be decided solely by those taking part in the negotiations.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Minister accept that during the last year of the previous Labour Government inflation

ran at 8 per cent? Does he further accept that during the first year of this Tory Government inflation has risen to 22 per cent. and that there is every prospect that it will continue to rise? The Minister has spoken about salary increases being part of the element under consideration. Will he accept that that is the most important part of the equation? How can the Secretary of State tell the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that the figure is higher than 13 per cent., when the Minister will not tell what the figure is? For how long will the Government continue to confuse teachers?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that local authorities are the employers. The Government cannot ignore the fact that local authorities in Scotland have budgeted for volume expenditure of £83 million more than was assumed at the time of the rate support grant. The hon. Gentleman is therefore wrong to suggest that the cash limit of £194 million—a substantial amount—should be increased, despite the excessive budgeting of local authorities.

Alcohol Products (Health Warning)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation requiring manufacturers to place health warning notices on the containers of all alcoholic products on sale to the general public in Scotland ; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): Alcohol presents a health risk only if misused ; I therefore do not consider that it would be appropriate to have a health warning on containers of all alcoholic products.

Mr. Dempsey: Has the Minister noticed that competent authorities judge that alcohol is Scotland's second biggest killer? Does he accept that drinkers of alcohol indicate that such consumption may result in irreversible brain damage, cirrhosis of the liver, heart failure, violence, suicides, malnutrition and in disastrous consequences for the home? Does he think that he should do something to warn such people about the dangers of drink abuse, just as smokers are warned about the dangers of smoking?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I accept a lot of what my hon. Friend has said. The Government are not complacent. We acknowledge that during the past 20 years there has been an appreciable increase in the number of alcoholics in Scotland. Although that trend is not peculiar to Scotland, it remains very disturbing. The vast majority drink sensibly, and only the minority abuse alcohol. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Government have taken action in Scotland. I recently attended the inaugural course of the alcohol study centre at Paisley, which is financially supported by the Government. We shall continue our campaign of health education on this vital subject.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am relieved that I do not suffer from any of the problems related to drink. Is my hon. Friend aware that a conference on alcohol education was held in October 1979 at Pitlochry? Is he further aware that that conference was sponsored by the Scotch whisky industry? Should we not go down that avenue and bring education to the notice of individuals at the right age?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I compliment my hon. Friend on his well-known abstemious habits. He certainly will not suffer from any of the complaints mentioned by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). I had the pleasure of attending that course at Pitlochry. I shall reiterate my previous reply. We are making every effort to extend education. This year we shall spend a considerable amount of money on health education in this sphere.

Mr. Buchan: In view of last year's events in Scotland, would it not be a great advantage to have a major poster campaign that simply said "Younger, Fletcher, Fairgrieve and Rifkind are bad for you"?

Mr. Fairgrieve: It is always wrong to poster inaccurate information.

Mr. John MacKay: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government do not intend to reduce from 18 to 16 the age at which youngsters can go into a pub to order a drink? Will he give an assurance that the Government have no intention of falling for such legislation?

Mr. Fairgrieve: Yes, I give that assurance.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase rate support grant cash limits to Scottish local authorities to finance salary settlements which at least keep up with the level of inflation.

Mr. Rifkind: The cash limit of £194 million represents the maximum amount of additional rate support grant which may be paid towards pay and price increases affecting local authority expenditure after November 1979, and will not be increased.

Mr. Foulkes: As the Minister has said that the cash limit allows for an increase of only 13 per cent., and as all other local authority costs—interest charges, fuel costs and so on—are rising more rapidly than that, will he confirm that it is the Government's policy to reduce the living standards of local authority employees?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall not confirm that, because our objective is to ensure that local authority expenditure is confined to a level that the country can afford. Local authority employees have as much interest as others in ensuring that local authorities act in a responsible way about expenditure.

Mr. Lang: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of cash limits is that they are limits? Will he reassure the House that the Government will stand by the discipline that they impose on local authority expenditure, as part of the fight against inflation?

Mr. Rifkind: I confirm that. We impose no cash limit obligations on local authorities that the Government are not prepared to accept for themselves.

Mr. Maclennan: How much lower than the going rate of inflation should the salaries of local government employees be?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the going rate of inflation is a scientific fact. However, it depends on the amount that employers choose to pay their employees as a result of wage negotiations. Local authority employees are the concern of local authorities, because they are the employers.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to amend the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 so as to require effective provision to be made for the disabled on transport undertakings.

Mr. Fairgrieve: The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 covers the whole of Britain and there is at present no intention of introducing amending legislation.

Mr. McKelvey: I am dismayed at that reply. Is the Minister aware that recently in Glasgow the completed underground system went into operation without any facilities for the disabled? The Glasgow passenger transport executive completed the plans without any consultation with those representing the disabled. Does the Minister agree that, unless we have some legislation with teeth, the Government will be thought of as purveyors of platitudes about the disabled, rather than as a Government prepared to do something positive on their behalf?

Mr. Fairgrieve: As the hon. Member knows, the refurbishing of the Glasgow Underground began in 1975, and from the beginning the transport executive had discussions with the Disablement Income Group and representatives from Access. The problem is that the Glasgow Underground has smaller coaches than the London Underground or British Rail. There is no problem for anyone who can walk, but if there were an emergency people in wheelchairs would have to be taken out through 20in wide front doors on to the track. It is not possible to put wheelchairs into these Underground carriages, and therefore there was no need to install lifts at the five stations concerned.

Mr. McQuarrie: I must support the comments made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey). It is dreadful that disabled people are unable to have these facilities. Will my hon. Friend reconsider his reply and give further consideration to this matter with a view to future projects being put forward?

Mr. Fairgrieve: The Government must deal with facts, and we take an extreme

interest in this matter. This year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended the annual general meeting of the Disablement Income Group, at which he spoke. Only recently I saw the newly-formed Scottish Access Committee. Wherever possible, the Government intend to ensure that the disabled are properly looked after.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Which political party was in control when the essential decisions about the Glasgow Underground were made? [An HON. MEMBER : "Roy Jenkins."]

Mr. Fairgrieve: I think that it was the Labour Party.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there may have been initial discussions with the representatives of the disabled about the Glasgow Underground, there was subsequently a regrettable breakdown in consultations between those representatives and the people responsible for the Underground?

Mr. Fairgrieve: My hon. Friend is right. I do not think that anyone would deny the facts of the situation. There is no way in which the disabled in wheelchairs could be catered for on this Underground. However, the PTE has recently apologised for its oversight in not informing the disabled representatives of the necessary change in decision.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

Mr. Lang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss overspending by local authorities.

Mr. Younger: On 20 June I shall discuss with the convention once more the need for local authorities to reduce planned expenditure for 1980–81 to the level envisaged in the rate support grant settlement.

Mr. Lang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the expansion of local authority staff numbers by about 14,000 in the last two years, including a 25 per cent. increase in public relations staff, represents an unnecessary and intolerable burden on the ratepayers in some areas? Will my right hon. Friend assure those authorities that the Government will not


allow them to get away wish such inflationary policies with impunity?

Mr. Younger: I agree that the continued growth in local authority staffs at a time when money is not available for such expansion is very worrying. The figure for the year ending December 1979 showed that manpower in local government had increased by 2·9 per cent., in a year when everyone was supposed to cut back. It is essential that the local authorities should cut back, in the interests of ratepayers and the country as a whole.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister desist from interfering in the day-to-day work of local authorities, which must live with real 22 per cent. inflation rather than his cloud-cuckoo 13 per cent.? Can he explain why the East Lothian district council has been stopped from building a desperately-needed community complex with its own money? That application to spend its own money has been lying on the Secretary of State's desk for seven weeks.

Mr. Younger: Unfortunately, for many years local authorities have been permitted to spend more money than the country can afford. It is our duty to make sure that they understand what the country can afford and that they get their expenditure down to that level.

Mr. Ancram: When my right hon. Friend next meets COSLA will he ask its representatives how many of its members, including the East Lothian district council, were mandated by their electors to spend ratepayers' money to support the Olympics in Moscow? Will he ask what the political complexions of these councils are and what services will have to be cut to finance these grants?

Mr. Younger: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's remarks. It is difficult to believe that local authorities are as short of money as they claim, when they appear to be able to splash money around to help the Moscow Olympics to get off the ground.

Mr. Ron Brown: One of the main problems associated with local government is interest payments. What help will the Secretary of State give to local authorities in Scotland to assist with this problem?

Mr. Younger: I can reassure the hon. Member to some extent. The rise and fall in the interest rates is automatically allowed for in the rate support grant settlement, and that gives considerable security to local authorities on that matter.

Teachers (Industrial Action)

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect on schools of the industrial action of some Scottish teachers.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Because education authorities keep their records in different ways it is not practicable to determine precisely the total number of pupils whose education has been affected. Since 12 May, however, the education of about 620,000 Scottish pupils has been affected in varying degrees.

Mr. Walker: When my hon. Friend is next in contact with the teachers' leaders will he remind them that the Labour Government were brought down in order to bring back free collective bargaining, and that is the situation in which the teachers find themselves to-day? Unfortunately, the teachers are indulging in and using political muscle of the kind that is more suited to industry. Therefore, it seems incorrect for them to claim professional status and professional pay when they are indulging in industrial activities of this sort.

Mr. Fletcher: I agree. I hope that the teachers will realise that their cause is not helped in any way by this sort of action, particularly when the opportunities are available for them to sit round the table and negotiate. Another meeting is due to take place tomorrow, and I hope that a settlement will be reached then.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Since the Secretary of State and the Minister feel able to interfere in local authorities' staffing levels, why are they so unprepared to try to bring about a settlement of this dispute which, if it goes on, will destroy education? If that happens, the Government will be responsible.

Mr. Fletcher: The prospects for a settlement lie entirely with the management—the local authorities—on the one hand, and the teachers' representatives on


the other. The sooner they reach a settlement, the better for all concerned.

Mr. Myles: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective action that the teachers can take to draw attention to their salaries is to make representations to their regional councillors? Sadly, that action is often omitted.

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is light to underline the fact that the teachers are employed by the regional authorities—and theirs is the body with whom they must negotiate in this dispute.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister appreciate that the teachers, who are probably listening to this discussion on the radio, are becoming increasingly frustrated by the Government's complete insensitivity and the deceitful manner in which they have approached the dispute? The teachers are in no doubt that the people who have the money are those in St. Andrew's House, and it is from them that a solution to the problem must come.

Mr. Fletcher: The Government are being open and frank with the teachers. They have the ability to sit down with their employers and try to reach a settlement. That is the fairest way in which to find a solution, and the more talking that there is between the local authorities and the teachers, the sooner a solution will be reached.

Mr. David Steel: May I repeat a question that was not answered earlier? If the meeting tomorrow decides that this dispute should go to arbitration, will the Government accept the result?

Mr. Fletcher: That is a matter for the STSC meeting tomorrow. Whether the teachers go to arbitration is entirely a matter for them, and the Government will not interfere with that decision.

Industry (Productivity Trends)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's policy of sanctions on Iran on industry in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade explained in answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 23 May,

statistics of overseas trade are not collected on a regional basis.

Road Bridges (Tolls)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy on toll charges on road bridges in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government's policy was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 27 July last.

Mr. Douglas: Why is the Under-Secretary of State so reticent about the financial stability of the boards responsible for toll charges on Scottish road bridges? Is he aware that any increase in the toll on the Forth road bridge will be regarded by my constituents, as a severe imposition and will inhibit industrial development in Fife?

Mr. Rifkind: I doubt that. The present level of tolls is substantially less in real terms than when first imposed. The representatives of the Forth joint board indicated to me that, in their assessment, abolishing tolls would increase the traffic flow by just over 1 per cent. That does not suggest even a remote effect on industrial development.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Given the toll-free status that Kessock bridge will enjoy, as it spans tidal waters, does the Minister recognise that there are anomalies in the imposition of tolls, and not only in Scotland? Does he accept that if such anomalies are to be removed it must be done on a United Kingdom basis?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. There has to be a United Kingdom policy. The original construction of the Forth and Tay bridges went ahead when local authorities said that they would agree to the imposition of tolls, and successive Governments have supported that view.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that I am one of the few hon. Members in the House who have been consistent throughout the years, despite changes in Government, about the need to abolish tolls on these bridges? Does he recognise that it is absurd that a motorist can travel from Land's End right through Fife, which is several hundred miles, and that the only bit of road that he has to pay for is that little bit


across the Firth of Forth? Is it not time that such nonsense was ended?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that half the debt outstanding on the Tay Bridge is due not to the Government but to local authorities. There would be significant consequences for ratepayers in the Tayside region if action were taken to get rid of the tolls.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend keep the situation of the Erskine bridge under particular scrutiny? Is it possible that the costs of collecting the tolls will exceed the revenue?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. It is difficult to set a realistic level of toll to cover the cost of the outstanding debt on the Erskine bridge, but it is clearly right and proper that those using the bridge should make a contribution comparable to that for other toll bridges in Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Alternative Energy Sources

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the failure of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to discharge the duty laid on it by section 4 of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979, he will commission another organisation or firm to carry out experiments into the possibility of using wave, tide, wind, natural gas or other forms of energy as alternatives to oil, in the Scottish Islands.

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. The board already generates some electricity from natural gas on Orkney, and is examining the possible use of other alternatives to oil for the generation of electricity on its isolated systems.

Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the board's record on this is deplorable? Will he ask the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which has its headquarters in the area, to show some interest and at least carry out experiments. The latest folly of the hydro board is to send four or five

copies of a pamphlet on saving energy to each firm in my constituency. We know all about the need to save energy. What we want is cheaper energy.

Mr. Younger: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am not sure whether he is being entirely fair to the board. It already generates electricity from cheap surplus gas in Orkney, it has had extensive discussions with the British Gas Corporation about the purchase of gas for electricity generation in Shetland. There is also a proposed experiment to develop wind generation in Orkney, which it is hoped will operate experimentally by the end of 1981. We all have to face the problem of saving electricity. The board's area can be no exception.

Mr. John MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Tiree and Caol would be happy to try to save electricity, but are not happy to have a surcharge imposed on them? Is he further aware that they will refuse to pay that surcharge?

Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, I am still considering the representations made to me by the consultative council. I hope to make an announcement before long.

Redundancies

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many workers have been made redundant in Scotland during 1980.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The number of workers involved in redundancies affecting 10 or more people notified to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur in Scotland up to the end of May 1980 was 18,532. This total includes provisional figures for April and May.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that that tragic figure means that it will be little short of criminal if the Government permit the sale of the National Enterprise Board's holdings in Ferranti to jeopardise employment and the company's expansion plans? Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend serve notice on the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry that they are not prepared to see the company taken over by a giant like GEC, with the consequent implications for employment


and the future of the enterprise in Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: As the hon. Gentleman implied, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The importance of the Scottish divisions and the jobs and success that the company brings to the Scottish economy are fully appreciated in the Scottish Office. The Government are aware of the significance of the disposal of NEB shares.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to compliment the steel workers at Glengarnock, who recently agreed to drop traditional demarcation barriers between craft skills and have accordingly avoided redundancies? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an example to other industries in Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is right. It is a good example. The tragedy is that, too often, many companies and workers in Scotland wait until it is too late before taking sensible steps to save their jobs.

Mr. David Steel: Since the Minister is supposed to be responsible for industry in Scotland, is he aware that the Prime Minister's answer yesterday about the sale of Ferranti shares is inadequate? Does he accept that the issue is not the principle of the NEB disposing of the shares, but the manner in which it is done? Does he rather accept that, if the shares go to the highest bidder, regardless of social consequences, that will be carrying out Tory economic policy to a ludicrous extent?

Mr. Fletcher: The Government are fully aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point with regard to Ferranti's operations in Scotland. This comes within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend and myself, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is also aware of the importance of the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State prepared to fight the Secretary of State for Industry in the Cabinet with regard to Ferranti?

Mr. Fletcher: The Government are fully aware of the problems of the disposal of Ferranti.

Mr. Dalyell: "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Fletcher: There is no need for the Government, publicly or privately, to conduct their business in the way that the Labour Party regularly does.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that much of Scotland's unemployment is in the construction industry? Does he accept that that is partly due to the delay in decisions from St. Andrew's House on public inquiries? Will my hon. Friend try to speed up such decisions and thus create more employment in the construction industry?

Mr. Fletcher: We are taking steps to improve the time that it takes for public inquiries to complete their work.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister acknowledge that Ferranti has been conspicuously successful in Scotland? Is he aware that management, including top management, and the trade unions are unanimously and bitterly opposed to a takeover by a company such as GEC, which can only prejudice those valuable jobs? Will the Scottish Office do everything possible to prevent that disastrous result?

Mr. Fletcher: It is no part of our job, in disposing of NEB shares in Ferranti, to prejudice jobs and the successful operation of the company in Scotland.

Lobster Fishermen

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance he has offered to lobster fishermen in the Western Isles.

Mr. Younger: I am very conscious of the difficulties being experienced by lobster fishermen in the Western Isles and elsewhere as a result of the increase in the import of lobsters from Canada into the United Kingdom and the European Community generally. I am considering as a matter of urgency whether any action can be taken to alleviate the situation.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some areas more than half the boats have withdrawn from lobster fishing, and that there is a crisis in the industry? Does he accept that lobster fishermen need assistance now?

Mr. Younger: There is a problem. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not possible to exclude such imports. The


Highlands and Islands Development Board has been asked to help, and it is considering the matter.

Mr. John MacKay: May we have an assurance that Canadian lobsters will be seen by the housewife to be Canadian, so that they are not passed off in the shops as lobsters from the Western Isles of Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I shall look into my hon. Friend's suggestion. Scottish lobsters are of a higher quality than Canadian lobsters, and I have no doubt that that is known to the housewife.

Mr. Maclennan: The Secretary of State has known about the problem for many weeks. Why does he come to the House today and say that he is considering the matter, albeit with urgency? Why is not he in a position to announce the help that the industry needs?

Mr. Younger: Help is being given to the industry, but, unfortunately, the organisation of that part of the industry is not suitable to take advantage of the help that we are channelling through the producer organisations. We are looking for other ways to help, and the Highlands and Islands Development Board is considering the matter.

PROSECUTION POLICY

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what changes there have been in the policy of prosecution over the past year.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): There has been no change in the actual policy of prosecution over the past year, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate and I have, in fulfilment of our pledge when we took office, appeared in the courts in cases which have been of great public interest. This has led to our appearing not only in the High Court in Edinburgh, but also when that court has been on circuit and in the sheriff court.
We have also spent a good deal of time visiting courts and fiscals' offices in Scotland with a view to ensuring that prosecutions proceed with the least possible delay in the interests of justice.

Mr. Foulkes: I welcome the personal interest taken by the Lord Advocate and

the Solicitor-General for Scotland in prosecutions. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what factors influence him in prosecutions under the obscene publications legislation to take proceedings on indictment rather than summarily, in view of the high cost involved in taking cases on indictment?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Any proceedings might be extremely expensive. All proceedings are taken according to the evidence presented and in consideration of public interest and human compassion.

Mr. Ancram: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the growing number of incidents involving vandalism and violence that are not prosecuted because of the difficulty of persuading witnesses to come forward and give evidence? Are the Government considering ways of bringing more such cases before the courts?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. My right hon. and noble Friend and I are anxious to ensure that all witnesses coming to court do not waste their time and are not treated in any way that will cause them not to wish to be witnesses in future. We are anxious to improve in every way the public's experience of the law.

Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman examine the operation of section 14 of the Bail Act? Will he intervene in the present unfortunate situation in the Glasgow district court? Is he aware that that court convenes at the behest of the Glasgow district council, but that the fiscal services are refusing to supply anyone to man the court on a Saturday? Is he aware that, as a result, people who are arrested on a Friday have to remain in custody until Monday? Does he accept that under section 14 there is an option to hold a Saturday court? If the Glasgow district council decides to exercise that option, will the hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the fiscals cooperate?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is not for me to intervene. The fiscal service cannot man the court on Saturday. I hope that public funds will not be wasted by the court meeting and paying people for doing nothing.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (MR. RON O'BYRNE)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if, in view of the admitted mistake of identity by the Procurator Fiscal resulting in Mr. Ron O'Byrne, of Livingston, being sentenced to a fine of £45 after having past offences committed by another Mr. R. O'Byrne attributed to him, he will introduce legislation to obviate the necessity for a victim of such admitted error to bear the expense of an appeal, and to deal more satisfactorily with cases where an unchallenged conviction for a minor traffic offence is compounded by error in relation to alleged previous convictions.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not consider that legislation would be appropriate in this case. For the record, the conviction which was libelled against Mr. O'Byrne related to another person of a quite different name who was also included in the same report by the police to the procurator fiscal. The error is very unlikely to recur. The conviction and sentence were set aside on 10 June with no expense falling on Mr. O'Byrne.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Lord Avocate for his courtesy in telephoning me at 11 o'clock at night. Nevertheless, is it not of consequence that people who are the victims of admitted error should have to go to the expense of an appeal?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am glad to say that Mr. O'Byrne did not have to go to the expense of an appeal. As a matter of general principle, persons who are convicted in error or as a result of a wrong fact should not be put to any expense. That is a principle to which I would certainly adhere in all cases.

Mr. Harry Ewing: May I thank the Solicitor-General for not telephoning me at 11 o'clock at night? Will he examine the appropriate clause in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill under which people pleading guilty by letter will be regarded as having admitted previous offences listed, in case there is something in the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that we can deal with on Report?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I agree that that is relevant to a discussion that we had elsewhere this week. The

transposition of the sentences of persons on the same report, not a confusion by a computer, was involved in this case. To ensure that I have made no mistake I shall telephone the hon. Gentleman each hour tonight.

CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS (COMPLAINTS)

Mr. Henderson: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether his Department is informed of complaints made to the Law Society of Scotland about the conduct of solicitors and the results of these complaints.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, Sir.

Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the response by the Law Society of Scotland to complaints made to it does not give the public great confidence that complaints are treated seriously?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware of the public concern, but it is a matter for the Law Society of Scotland, not for me. The Royal Commission has made certain recommendations, which all concerned will consider. As a general principle, it is in the interests of each profession to ensure that its procedures of inquiry give public confidence that any defalcations or mistakes are immediately and properly investigated.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the public anxiety about the legal closed shop? What do the Government plan to do about it?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman, whether or not he has his hands in his pockets. Closed shops in trade unions are intended to protect their members against the public. In the legal profession they are intended to protect the public against their members.

Mr. McQuarrie: When complaints are received by the Law Society of Scotland, will my hon. and learned Friend take into consideration the fact that when a person is appealing for money due and a defalcation by a solicitor is involved, the complainant should be entitled not only to the money due but to the expenses


that he has incurred in putting his case to the Law Society?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The question of expenses is a thorny one when talking of complaining against any organisation. I regret that it has been the habit of the Scots, in order to protect their reputation for canniness in the expenditure of money, not to give expenses to people who lose.

DIVORCE PROCEDURE

Mr. Dewar: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects to discuss with the Lord President the report of Lord Cowie's committee on divorce procedure.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate hopes to initiate consultations in the near future with the Lord President regarding the report of Lord Cowie's working party.

Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this should be given a high priority at a time when the average fee for an undefended divorce is spiralling to over £400 or £500? May we have an assurance that the Government will take action to reform the divorce law procedures? After the lengthy consultation on the Law Commission's report on the legal services generally, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is something that should be seperated from the general considerations in the report and acted upon?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. This is an important matter. The hen. Gentleman will appreciate that, of the spiralling sum, 92 per cent. goes to his part of the profession. I do not think that removing such procedures from the Court of Session will alter that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman considering the vexed question of reciprocal custody orders between Scotland and England? How soon will they be agreed?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a matter of considerable negotiation, report and consideration by the Law Commission. I hope that it will shortly be agreed.

INCEST

Mr. Pollock: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the policy of the Crown Office in relation to prosecutions for incest.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The policy is to prosecute in the High Court of Justiciary those cases where the evidence is sufficient, subject to considerations of compassion and humanity relative to the particular circumstances of each case.

Mr. Pollock: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet, both in legal circles in Scotland and among the public, about the currrent state of our law? Is he prepared to consider possible reforms in this highly delicate matter?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. The Law Commission recently issued a paper to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the law of incest. The law of incest, in my view, is in an unsatisfactory state. I am anxious that there should be protection not only for those related by blood, but particularly for those who are in a position of trust where that trust is broken. A reform of the law in Scotland is overdue, and I hope that we shall be able to undertake it.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is not the answer that the Solicitor-General has given a good reason for the Government maintaining the present position, as contained in clause 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and not introducing the amendments that we persuaded the Minister to withdraw? I am sure that the Solicitor-General knows that I mean that where children are involved in High Court cases the press should not be allowed to publish the names of the children.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No. Those are the sorts of cases in which the matter would not be reported under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. However, the plea comes oddly from the hon. Gentleman, who as a Minister, introduced four categories of person into the law of Scotland for the first time, namely, those who could marry but would commit incest if they had intercourse, those


who could not marry but would not commit incest if they had intercourse, and those who both would and would not.

NEW HEBRIDES

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): With your permission Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the New Hebrides.
As hon. Members will recall, I made a statement to the House on 3 June on current problems in the New Hebrides. I said that if no progress was made towards reconciliation, Britain and France would decide jointly on what further action to take. My right hon. and noble Friend and I met M. Dijoud, the French Minister responsible for Overseas Territories, on 9 June as part of our continuing consultations on the situation in the condominium.
The House will be aware that within the last 24 hours the security situation in the New Hebrides has deteriorated. I regret that last night, on the island of Tanna, Alexis Yolu, an Opposition political leader, was killed. The exact circumstances of his death are not yet clear. In order to maintain the joint commitments of the British and French Governments to preserve law and order and territorial integrity in the New Hebrides, the French Government today sent a contingent of gendarmes from Noumea, in New Caledonia, to the New Hebrides. Her Majesty's Government are despatching to Vila one company of Royal Marines, with a headquarters element and logistic support.
This action by both Governments does not reflect any change in our determination to work jointly for a peaceful solution to the present problems.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does this statement not show clearly that the appalling in-decisiveness of the approach of Her Majesty's Government has resulted not only in not solving one revolution but fomenting, at the same time, another insurrection? Will the Minister come clean about his relationships with the French Government? At the same time as a joint statement was apparently being made that no action was to be taken, using the gendarmerie or any other form of police action, Mr. Jean-Jaques Robert was reported in the French press as being received by a guard of honour and having to explain to 250 of his own citizens why the French Government were not taking


unilateral action to support Mr. Jimmy Stevens. Will the Minister say what is to happen? How much longer shall we have to wait before he gives real support to what is a freely elected, democratic Government?

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Lady will be glad to know that the situation on Tanna is now peaceful. Two platoons of police mobile units—one French and one British—are there. We are co-operating on Tanna. As for our relations with the French, I understood the statement made by M. Dijoud last week, about not taking military action, to refer to not taking military action at that time. I agreed with him then. Circumstances have now changed. We were right last week to rely on negotiation.
An attempt at negotiation has been made. It has not so far succeeded. We intend to encourage both parties to resume negotiations. The French have considerable influence on the island of Santo. We shall exercise our influence with them to get both parties to cooperate.

Mrs. Dunwoody: May I remind the Minister that Father Lini had detailed talks in London and elsewhere with the secessionists in Esperitu-Santo? It is not his Government who are at fault. When the Minister says that both sides should come to the table, should he not point out that the elected Government went through a general election and obtained a good result, with a large majority ?

Mr. Blaker: That is true. I have reaffirmed it many times. What the hon. Lady may not be accepting is that to move precipitately into military action will not necessarily solve the problems. The people of the New Hebrides have to live together in the future. We want to create a situation in which the basic problems are resolved.

Mr. Kershaw: Is it not strange that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is so much opposed to gunboats, should now demand their presence in ever-increasing numbers? Would it not be better to proceed slowly in this matter? The people in that part of the world are motivated in ways different from ours. We should not plunge in with armed force before we

know how much progress can be made through negotiation.

Mr. Blaker: My hon. Friend is right in pointing out the bizarre attitude adopted by the hon. Lady last week. One recalls her militaristic tones. It was her party that insisted on leaving us with very few forces east of Suez. The demand for military action last week came oddly from her. I agree with my hon. Friend that the right posture for us to adopt is one of caution but resolution. The dispatch of the troops to which I have referred shows our resolution.

Mr. Dalyell: Bearing in mind that it is always more difficult to take troops out than to put them in, will the Minister say in what circumstances—granted that one builds up certain relationships—it will be possible easily to withdraw the gendarmerie and the Marines once they have moved in? Many hon. Members who have seen Jimmy Stevens on television—we claim no further information—have grave doubts about putting in the gendarmerie and the Marines.

Mr. Blaker: I note that the Opposition are divided on the matter. The object of sending in the gendarmerie and the Marines is to provide stability in the islands, so that negotiations can better be resumed.

Mr. Paul Dean: I welcome my hon. Friend"s statement and accept the regrettable necessity to have troops available in present circumstances. Will he emphasise that as soon as law and order is restored the basic necessity for peaceful negotiations will remain, so that the New Hebrides can proceed to independence, if possible, on the due date?

Mr. Blaker: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the presence of the troops in the New Hebrides will not necessarily be for long. Our object must be to leave the New Hebrides in a condition in which its people are prepared to five together with one another in peace.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the specific words that he used in his statement, and has since repeated, namely, to send in the gendarmerie and the Marines to quell the rebellion and to restore law and order, are almost identical to the words used by the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan?

Mr. Blaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has risen to his usual form. In any case, he misquoted what I said. No doubt he will look it up in Hansard tomorrow. I said that the sending in of troops is intended to create stability in the islands, so that negotiations can better be resumed.

Mr. Cormaek: Is not it a trifle odd that the Opposition have not yet suggested sending in a United Nations peacekeeping force?

Mr. Blaker: I notice that the Opposition seem to be entirely devoid of any ideas or understanding of this problem. The only thing for which they were able to call last week was the sending in of troops, without any further reflection about what that might mean.

Mr. English: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the poetry of one of our former Members who represented Hull. Is it the case that he is not describing these events as treason because they are prospering?

Mr. Blaker: I am afraid that I do not follow the allusion to the former Labour Member for Hull. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman's question indicates that he has not followed the answers that I have given.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that it is very unfair of him to castigate the Opposition for not having ideas on this matter? The plain fact is that this rather tragic business reflects a considerable lack of foresight on the part of the Foreign Office.

Mr. Blaker: I do not accept that in any way whatever. The trouble results from the failure of Jimmy Stevens and his followers to win the local elections in Santo, and the failure of the Opposition groups—those who are now causing the trouble—in Tanna to win the elections for the regional council on that Island.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my non. Friend say who will command the Marines and the gendarmerie? Will they act in concert, and under whose command do they come? Can he say whether the possibility of independence being delayed is now being considered?

Mr. Blaker: We believe that it is right to stick to the date of 30 July for

independence. That is agreed between the French and ourselves and the New Hebrides Government. We shall be working towards that end. The gendarmerie and the Marines will work in co-operation. In the last resort, they will come under the command of the resident commissioner.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising.

Mr. Kilfedder: Have the Government delivered a protest to the United States Government with regard to the activities of an American organisation that has been fomenting the rebellion in this unhappy island?

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman may not have been in the House the other day when I answered a question on that subject. I said that we had been in touch with the United States Government, who said that if they could obtain the necessary evidence they would prosecute the individuals to whom he has referred. However, I do not think that the House should assume that if such a prosecution took place, and the influence of the Phoenix Foundation were removed from the New Hebrides, the problem would necessarily be solved.

Mr. Newens: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the French settlers bear a considerable responsibility for the revolt that has taken place? In those circumstances—putting on one side the question of troops, about which a number of us are not too keen—can he say what proposals there are, in the long run, aimed at settling the problem in order that the democratic forces can take over in that area?

Mr. Blaker: It is true that some of the French settlers have been co-operating with Jimmy Stevens on the island of Santo. The French Government have said that they are resolved to restore the integrity of the New Hebrides and to solve the problem of Santo. The position of the settlers will be discussed between the French and New Hebrides Governments. The French Government have a large aid programme for the New Hebrides. That may be relevant to the position of the settlers, and it is important that everything should be done to


encourage the French Government to continue with that aid programme.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is far too easy to put the blame for the present disturbance on Jimmy Stevens and the failure of his party to win the general election? Does he agrees that it takes far more than that to cause what is tantamount to a revolution in the New Hebrides? Will he consider this matter again and give the House the full and true facts?

Mr. Blaker: I do not particularly like the insinuation contained in the last few words of the hon. Gentleman's question. I take it that he did not mean to imply that I had been giving false facts to the House. As to the origins of the problems in Santo, there are, of course, other factors. For example, there are different languages in a condominium. There are three different languages in the New Hebrides, which inevitably complicates the situation. There are also several different religions. If those problems did not exist, the situation would be much simpler. But ultimately the cause of the problem in Santo is the resentment of Jimmy Stevens and his followers at having failed to win the election on that island.

Mr. Ron Brown: In view of the Minister's statement, I take it that it is now all right for the British team to go to the Olympic Games—or is it simply the case that the Government represent double standards?

Mr. Blaker: I am afraid that that question is too abstruse for me to follow.

Mr. Hooley: The positive joint intervention by Britain and France to uphold the authority of the lawful Government is clearly welcome. However, will the Minister be a little more explicit about American involvement? Surely the American Government do not have to wait for a prosecution before they can bring some pressure to bear on very unsavoury activities by their nationals in the Pacific.

Mr. Blaker: We have been assured by the American Government that we shall have their full co-operation.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Straw: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter about which I have given you and the Lord Privy Seal notice regarding the important issue of responsibility for questions on EEC matters. The House will recall that on 29 and 30 May negotiations were conducted in the Foreign Affairs Council of the EEC on the critical question of our contribution to the EEC budget and that that settlement was reported to the House by the Minister involved in those negotiations, the Lord Privy Seal, on 2 June.
In the course of his statement to the House, in column 1045 of the Official Report, the right hon. Gentleman explained that there would be credits arising as a result of the rebates which would be granted and that for 1980 we expected to be paid before the end of the financial year 1980–81. What was not explained was exactly how those credits were to be paid, and whether they would be paid in cash or in kind.
On 4 June, the due date, I tabled a question to the Lord Privy Seal asking for clarification on what he had said in the House two days before. I asked
how much of the rebate on the United Kingdom's contribution for 1980 will be paid in cash and when ; and how the remainder will be paid, and when.
I checked that question with the Table Office, which raised no objection to it whatever and said that it was in order for the Lord Privy Seal. It went down on the Order Paper and came out of the ballot as No. 4. It was, therefore, certain to be reached on 18 June. Six days later, the Lord Privy Seal's office wrote to me stating that the question had been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for answer. I am aware of the convention that it is up to Ministers to decide which questions they answer and which they transfer. While I object to that, I am not seeking to challenge that rule.
However, I believe that the conduct of the Lord Privy Seal raises two other separate issues. The first is whether it is in order for a Minister to wait six days before deciding to transfer a question. Secondly, and more important, it raises the question whether it is in order for a Minister, having accepted responsibility for a particular line of questioning—as the


Lord Privy Seal unquestionably had in the months leading up to the Foreign Affairs Council negotiations and in his statement—to decide suddenly, and without notice to hon. Members, that he will no longer answer questions on that issue and to transfer them to other Ministers.
It is my submission that that is an abuse of the rights of hon. Members and that it places them in an intolerable position. After all, we have only one opportunity a month to ask such oral questions, and if they are suddenly transferred without any notice or warning whatever we lose that chance. This deal was negotiated by the Lord Privy Seal and he answered questions on it on 2 June. My question sought clarification not on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—the Chancellor was never mentioned at any stage during the negotiations—but on what was said by the Lord Privy Seal.
Unless there is a change, Mr. Speaker, one is left with the impression that the Lord Privy Seal is seeking in an underhand way, to avoid responsibility for the settlement made in Brussels two weeks ago.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who put down a similar question and similarly had it transferred, may I ask whether that is not, at the very least, an unsatisfactory procedure in the case of the Brussels deals? If a Minister goes to a meeting in Brussels and reaches an agreement and explains it and answers questions about it in the House but says, when specific questions are put down to him, that it has nothing to do with him, surely that is not satisfactory.

Mr. Skinner: What complicates the matter is that on the same day that my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), put down questions, I attempted to be a little more cautious about the matter in order to ensure that I got an answer. My attempt was a relatively simple one. I put down a question asking the Lord Privy Seal when he had last met other EEC leaders. That would have enabled me to ask a supplementary question on the specific point.
I had an idea that had I taken the option that was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn the chances

were that my question would have gone to the bottom of the list to be answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a day when perhaps he was not even answering oral questions. I, therefore, took the precaution of putting down a general question in order to extract the answer in a supplementary question.
I then came up against the block, Mr. Speaker, that you brought in a few weeks ago. What I wish to impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, particularly in view of the fact that you said that you would look at the matter again to see how it had worked after a few months, is the situation today. On this specific question my hon. Friend has been shown how the Government operate in order to avoid answering questions.
I have now demonstrated to you, Mr. Speaker, that in order to get round that some of us have to take the other precaution. I hope that very soon we shall be allowed the opportunity to put down general questions in order to extract information which the Government are dilatory in providing or about which they refuse to answer.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to both hon. Members and the right hon. Member for the way in which they have submitted their points to me. I must repeat that the transfer of questions by a Minister is not a matter in which the Speaker has ever sought to intervene.
I think that the second point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was valid. It is a discourtesy and it is unfair when Ministers do not, within two days—as indicated twice by the Select Committee on procedure—notify an hon. Member if they intend to transfer a question. When that happens, the question falls lower in the list. I am quite sure that now that Ministers have been reminded of the report of the Select Committee on procedure—and the advice of the Leader of the House—the procedure will be observed.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall conclude in a moment.
In relation to the issue of open questions raised by the hon. Member for


Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I think that, by and large, the scheme is working well. We could ruin our Order Paper if we had open questions to all Ministers.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I entirely agree with what you have said, Mr. Speaker, about the normal practice of the House. As you have reiterated today, the transfer of a question should normally take place within two days. I have looked into the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), as you have, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be happy to carry out a further investigation into the matter.
Having accepted that point, I hope that it will be of benefit in the future. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, I have to say that two Departments are involved in a transfer and I believe that it would be wrong to jump to conclusions about where the delay occurred. Because the matter has now passed on, I am afraid that I cannot rectify the hon. Member's complaint. However, I shall do my best to see that delay does not occur in future.

Mr. Foot: May I, on behalf of the House, thank you for the statement you made, Mr. Speaker, in response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), your statement to the House was made without any decision by the House, though no doubt the House is waiting to see how the matter works out. Some of us are anxious to see how it works because we are not sure that it should apply in all cases.
I do not think that the statement by the Leader of the House on the major point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn is satisfactory. It is not for the Leader of the House to say that he is not quite clear where guilt now resides and which Department is more responsible. We are not interested in that. We want a proper statement and an apology from the Minister responsible.
Therefore, I think that the Lord Privy Seal, representing the Foreign Office—if the Foreign Office is responsible for the action taken—should, in the light of what you have said, make a statement to the House. I think that that would be the

proper thing to do. That, I think, would ensure that the same thing never happened again. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has sustained a serious grievance and we wish to ensure that other hon. Members do not suffer in future.

Mr. Freud: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have now spent eight minutes on this point of order. Would it not be a good idea if the Lord Privy Seal answered the question raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) so that we might all be put out of our agony?

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the protection of the House should extend, through you, to Back Benchers in relation to the responsibility of Ministers? Is it not also a fact that the Foreign Office, having taken upon itself the responsibility to negotiate our financial arrangements with the EEC at the meeting of the Council of Ministers and in a statement in the House by the Lord Privy Seal, has transgressed in transferring a question relating to that agreement and that statement? According to the usually expected standards of the House, a Minister answers on those matters for which he is responsible.

Mr. Speaker: I made a statement on that matter earlier. My reference to the two-day notification period was couched in sterner language than usual. I think, therefore, that I have looked after the interests of Back Benchers. I must say to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), concerning open questions to Ministers, that I propose, until the House instructs me otherwise—I am the servant of the House and I am expected to be the guardian of its traditions and customs—to follow the rule on open questions to Ministers which I have been pursuing. The rule has worked very well indeed.

Mr. Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, apart from the matter that you have, if I may say so, adequately dealt with concerning the discourtesy shown to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), there is an issue of great importance to the whole House. It arises from the inevitable interaction of events in the European Communities and the fact that, by the common practice of successive


Governments in this House, one Department has taken the lead in answering questions relating to the EEC as a whole.
We all understand that at a certain point of detail it is right and proper that the lead Department, as it were, should invite other Departments to answer questions. But where matters are absolutely central to the operations of the Community, it is essential that those who are responsible and who negotiate the settlements—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Privy Seal and the Foreign Secretary—should be available to answer questions, particularly after having made a statement.
This point is obviously relevant to the whole idea, habit and practice of giving 20 minutes of Foreign Office time to answering questions on the EEC. Are we now to understand that many matters which are central to our relations with the EEC are to be deleted from the responsibility of Foreign Office Ministers when it comes to questions in the Foreign Office time? I very much hope that that is not so. I believe that the House requires a definite answer and assurance on this point.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) has raised a point of substance, as has his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Because it is a point of substance, we must assess the facts and issues. We cannot dispose of it by an off-the-cuff statement. I have given an undertaking, following your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we will look

at this matter. I will certainly look at the perhaps even more important point made by the right hon. Gentleman to see what the situation is and then we can have discussions through the usual channels.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This could happen again ; it has to a lesser extent happened before. As it is possible for a Minister to transfer a question to another Minister—I realise that this is nothing to do with you, Mr. Speaker—may I, through you, ask the Leader of the House whether it would be equally advantageous in certain situations to transfer a question back to the Minister to whom it was addressed in the first place?

Mr. Speaker: I was very generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to make his point.

BILL PRESENTED

SOVIET UNION (TEMPORARY POWERS)

Mr. Patrick Cormack, supported by Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Mr. Eldon Griffiths, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. David Price, Mr. Peter Mills and Sir Nicholas Bonsor, presented a Bill to enable provision to be made in consequence of breaches of international law by the Soviet Union in connection with or arising out of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed [Bill 218].

ORIGIN MARKING

Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Eye): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the marking of all goods sold in the United Kingdom with a clear statement of the country of origin and whether they are made in whole or in part within the European Economic Community.
This is a consumer protection measure. The intention is to ensure that the housewife or the purchasing officer knows where a product is made. It is introduced in the full knowledge that the Government have already moved a long way in this direction.
I support the measures already announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the steps she is taking to ensure that at least in some of these areas people know where the goods that they are buying were made.
There seem to be me to be three reasons why the Bill is important. They were reasons that the Moloney committee overlooked or reasons that did not exist when that committee reported and the previous Labour Government decided to get rid of the protection that I should like to reintroduced.
First, it is important that people should be able to choose. I do not believe in the introduction of import controls. In fact, I believe that that would be a disastrous course for this country to follow. But people should be able to make their own choice about goods on grounds that they decide are important and not that someone else decides are important for them.
There are many people—recent surveys show that this number is increasing—who want to buy goods from a particular country or area of organ. Sometimes they will wish not to buy British. That is their right and opportunity. I believe that this country would benefit considerably if consumers decided that British was best, but that is for them to decide ; it is not for the Government or anyone else to impose. Therefore, it is important that people should be able to choose whether to buy British or not. Those who support the European Community may wish to buy goods made

within or outside the Community. It is for them to choose. Others may take the opposite decision.
The second reason is that there is a good deal of misleading information of this kind, which should be stopped. A manufacturer of pianos in my constituency has pointed out that, as the Germans have a fine reputation for making pianos, many now on the market are produced not in Germany but in countries behind the Iron Curtain, and given German-sounding names. Therefore, the Steinbeck and the Bechsburgh pianos, made in Czechoslovakia, East Germany or in other countries beyond the Iron Curtain, have come on to the market and, some of us would say, have been dumped in this country. Such pianos give the impression of being German, because they do not have to display the fact that they are made in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or wherever it may be.
This situation is particularly true of the cutlery industry. Goods wholly manufactured in Taiwan, for example, are dipped and boxed in Britain, and "Made in England" or "Made in Sheffield" is stamped upon them. That seems unacceptable, and it would be made impossible by the kind of legislation that I should like to introduce.
The third reason, which is often overlooked, is none the less important. There are many instances when the country of origin makes a difference to the nature of the goods. I do not wish to dwell too much on this point, but many people are unhappy about the way in which the French, for example, feed geese to produce paté de fois gras. I should like to know whether the product is made in France for that reason.
There is another matter that particularly concerns me. The Soviet Government are busy locking up Christian dissidents and dumping Christmas cards in this country unmarked with their country of origin. No Christian in this country ought to buy Christmas cards manufactured in Russia. We ought to know whether they are manufactured in Russia so that we can not only refuse to buy them but tell shopkeepers why we refuse to buy them. This legislation would give us the opportunity to make that decision.
This is not a proposal in restraint of trade. The only argument that it might restrain trade is that the consumer is


better left in ignorance. That may have been good enough for the Moloney committee, but it does not seem to be good enough for us today. I believe that the consumer is best able to make his or her own choice. The consumer needs only the protection of accurate information. It is the duty of this House to ensure that the consumer gets such information. The Bill would enable that to be done by consultation, industry by industry, and an agreed code of practice, which would be enforceable.
It would be done by using the method already used for goods produced in a number of different fibres, on which there is a small label saying "20 per cent. viscose, 40 per cent. Terylene, 40 per cent. cotton". That would cover a product that was made in a number of different places. One would be able to see that a car that claimed to be British might be 93 per cent. made in Germany. It would be done within wide bands, so that it would not be too difficult, it would not refer to any amount less than 20 per cent. and it would be a burden upon the manufacturer and importer, not the retailer.
I believe that this is a timely Bill to introduce. There is a feeling in this country that the consumer should have interests other than those that result directly from advertising. Many people would like to make decisions based not

only on price but on where the goods were made, where the employment was provided, and on the quality. Although certain professional consumer protection agencies are not tremendously enthusiastic about this idea, I believe that most have slopped opposing it. I believe that the housewife and the purchasing officer certainly want to know where goods are manufactured. If not, they need take no notice of it. However, if they do, they have a right to know.
It is for those reasons that I ask the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Selwyn Gummer, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Hugh Dykes Mrs. Peggy Fenner, Mr. David Madel, Mr. David Knox and Mr. Colin Shepherd.

ORIGIN MARKING

Mr. Selwyn Gummer accordingly presented a Bill to require the marking of all goods sold in the United Kingdom with a clear statement of the country of origin and whether they are made in whole or in part within the European Economic Community: And the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be read a Second Time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 219].

Orders of the Day — TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1

SECURE TENANT'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, at end add—
'(1A) Where the spouse of a tenant or, where there is a joint tenancy, the spouse of a joint tenant, occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home but is not himself a joint tenant, the right to purchase the dwelling-house under subsection (1) above shall not be exercised without the consent of such spouse.'.
The amendment would give spouses a right of veto over their partner's right of purchase and so provide protection for a wife who might otherwise risk having the roof sold over her head. It is especially relevant in view of the new ground for eviction being introduced in schedule 2. The matter was discussed in Committee, and the Government undertook to bring forward an amendment at this stage.
I recommend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I welcome the amendment. The way in which the Government have dealt with the problem is in line with a suggestion that I made in Committee. I am grateful for the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 1, leave out ' subsection (9) ' and insert ' subsections (9) and (9A)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments :
No. 40, in page 4, line 21, at end, insert—
'(9A) This section does not apply to tenancies where the tenant is an employee of the landlord, or of any local authority or development corporation and his contract of employ-

ment requires him to occupy the dwelling-house for the better performance of his duties.'.
No. 45, in page 4, line 45, at end insert—
'"contract of employment" means a contract of service or of apprenticeship, whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether it is oral or in writing'.
Government amendments Nos. 256 and 257.
No. 189, in schedule 1, page 47, line 8, leave out paragraph 2.
No. 190, in page 47, leave out lines 8 to 15.
No. 193, in schedule 2, page 49, line 20, at end insert—
'4A. The tenant is the employee of the landlord and his contract of employment requires him to occupy the dwelling-house for the better performance of his duties, and he has been in that employment for less than two years and he has ceased to be in that employment, and the landlord requires the dwelling-house for necessary occupation as a residence by some person engaged in the landlord's employment.'.
No. 197, in page 49, line 22, at end insert—
'5A(1) The tenant (or any one of joint tenants) was but no longer is an employee of the landlord, or of any local authority or development corporation and his contract of employment requires him to occupy the dwelling house for the better performance of his duties and the landlord requires the dwelling house for a similar contract of employment in respect of another employee.
(2) In this paragraph "contract of employment" means a contract of service in an apprenticeship, whether express or in practice, and (if it is express) whether it is oral or in writing.'.
No. 206, in page 50, line 19, at end insert—
'13. The tenant is the employee of the landlord and his contract of employment requires him to occupy the dwelling-house for the better performance of his duties, and he has been in that employment for a continuous period of not less than two years and he has ceased to be in that employment and the landlord requires the dwelling-house for necessary occupation as a residence by some person engaged in the landlord's employment.'.

Mr. O'Neill: This series of amendments relates to the question of tied homes. While there is a fair measure of disagreement between both sides of the House in respect of the sale of council houses, there is a fair measure of agreement in respect of the tenants' charter provisions in the Bill. The amendments seek to draw attention to questions that we raised in Committee and with which


we are still unhappy. We have been approached by organisations such as the General and Municipal Workers Union, which has many members who will be affected by some of the provisions in the Bill.
We seek to fill a gap in the charter in two specific areas. First, tenants who have been offered tied houses for sale but have chosen not to buy them do not have security of tenure. We recognise that that involves a relatively small number. But if the Government make a moral case out of affording people the opportunity to buy their houses, equally it is incumbent upon them to provide for those who choose not to exercise that option the opportunity to remain in that house for as long as is reasonably possible.
Secondly, a larger number of people—we are advised that it could be as many as 11,000—have no guarantee of security of tenure because their houses are deemed essential for the furtherance of a certain occupation. Into that group we would place janitors and policemen. They are often required to live near their place of employment, and spend perhaps 30 years in one police house or school house. They devote a considerable period of their lives to their jobs. The nature of their employment is such that they often have to work long hours, in many instances without adequate overtime remuneration. We are not here to discuss the terms and conditions of employment, but I point out that fact because it is part of the whole question when they have to live "over the shop".
Because they live in that way, they often build up associations with an area. We seek to secure for them the opportunity to remain in their houses, provided that the employers do not have another use for them. For example, if a schoolmaster retires and asks to stay in the school house, permission may be granted because the replacement schoolmaster already has a house in the area and is prepared to commute. There is a reasonable turnover in schoolmasters in country areas, because they tend to move from smaller to larger schools. Such instances will become less frequent as the number of jobs in those areas contracts. The problem that I am trying to highlight is the case of a teacher who retires and finds that his replacement does not have

a house and is not prepared to commute. In that instance the retired teacher would be required to leave the house.
I do not wish to make heavy weather out of the issue, but it affects a substantial number of people. I do not see this as a matter of great controversy. I think that the Minister will concede that, over a period of time, if council houses sales expand at even a modest rate the flexibility of local authorities, especially in rural areas—we had an interesting debate on that subject yesterday—to provide additional accommodation will become more difficult. It is essential that we highlight that difficulty and seek from the Minister firmer assurances than those that we nave received to date.
In some amendments the Minister has gone some way towards meeting our concern. However, if the amendments are acceptable to him we could resolve a painful problem for a relatively small number of people, in the most extreme sense—although in a wider context it could affect many more. If the amendments are rejected, we suggest that the Minister finds better amendments and introduces them, at the appropriate time, in another place. If we do not obtain satisfaction today, some of our friends in another place will seek to exercise that privilege.
I wish to reiterate that we have heard some passionate pleas from Ministers—Conservative Members tend not to speak frequently, and if they do it is with a singular lack of passion—when they laid great stress on the right of individual tenants to purchase their houses. Although we disagree with that, we point out to the Minister that those who choose not to buy their houses, or whose houses are never available for purchase because of the nature of their employment, should be guaranteed a degree of security of tenure, which the present legislation does not offer.
We are not dealing with a particularly controversial issue or a matter of great principle, but it is one on which a charitable approach by the Government would go some way to allay the fears of the GMWU and the plethora of organisations that are concerned about individuals who have to five "over the shop" in tied cottages. There are examples of parallel legislation in England which


could be used as a model by the Government.
There is no need for a crisis of conscience by the Government, or one of the U-turns that we are looking for in their other policies. The Government could solve the problem quite easily. If our amendments are not adequate, the Minister should seek, in justice and fairness, to provide the appropriate amendments in another place.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has entered the Chamber, because I cannot even find the amendments on the Amendment Paper, let alone understand what they are about. However, I think that I remember the gist of our case. We are trying to elicit a statement of policy from the Government about how they propose to deal with the omnibus description of tied houses.
On the technical point, we are probably wrong in trying to give security of tenure to people in tied houses. That is probably technically impossible and wrong in principle, because I do not think that there can be any security of tenure, in the accepted sense, in a tied house. However, in the new circumstances of the sale of council houses, the Government must make an effort to meet the legitimate fears that we expressed in Committee.
The Bill will be as big a shambles as the Secretary of State's previous effort in 1972. The amendments deal with one of the practical points that the Government have not considered. What will be the effect of an awkward, bloody-minded local authority saying, within the law, that it will not continue to give preferential treatment to janitors, agricultural workers, health board workers, prison officers and others who have received generous treatment from, for instance, Glasgow district council?
Does the Minister believe that Glasgow district council will give such favourable treatment to those groups when they can move into high amenity houses in high amenity areas and buy them the next day?
The Government have a majority and can push through what they like, but they have not thought out the problem. The

amendments are an attempt to write in security of tenure for groups to whom it is not possible to give security. If we accept the necessity for some groups to have tied houses, we must realise that security of tenure cannot apply to them in the same way as it applies to someone in a house that is not related to his job.
Unless the Government have something up their sleeve of which I am not aware, I cannot see how they will be able to meet that difficulty. I am not a threatening person, but some of my colleagues in local Government are getting to the stage where if hon. Members do not start threatening everybody they will lose influence in the party.
It is no use the Secretary of State raising his eyebrows. Does he realise what he is doing? Does he have no constituents in tied houses? Does he think that the Labour-controlled Kyle and Carrick council, which was worse under the Conservatives, should give sympathetic consideration to those leaving tied houses, with the result that they could buy the best houses in the council stock?
The Government have created new circumstances. Perhaps I am not expressing clearly what I am after. The Under-Secretary is raising his eyebrows now. We are dealing with a matter of great concern and I am apprehensive, because local authorities can be compelled to deal with homeless persons and I do not believe that that is the way that we should treat those who, through no fault of their own, are flung out of a tied house after having given years of service. However, the consequences of the Government's legislation is that the only statutory protection for those people will be the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act.
The amendments are an attempt to air the problem and to give greater security of tenure to people in jobs that carry with them tied accommodation.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in the debate and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) for moving the amendment.
We debated the matter in Committee, when it emerged that the amendments that I had tabled were defective and did not commend themselves to the Government. I have sought to put together a


workmanlike set of amendments to meet the Minister's objections.
Basically, we seek to meet the objection that, because of the way that the Bill is drafted, if one confers full security of tenure on a tied tenant he automatically has the right to buy his property. The local authority has no discretion to refuse, which could result in the unsatisfactory situation that the tied houses of some district council tenants who are in that accommodation because they are caretakers, janitors or in similar jobs could be sold into private owner-occupation. I have take on board the Minister's objection on that point and I have drafted amendments that would have the effect of not conferring on a tied tenant the automatic right to purchase his property. That frees us to confer security of tenure on those tenants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said that it is not possible to extend to tied tenants the same security of tenure that applies to other tenants. I accept that. I do not think that we can say that tied tenants will be able to enjoy the same absolute right of security of tenure as other tenants.
4.30 pm
That is not to say that we cannot confer on them a meaningful degree of security of tenure which recognises their distinctive position as private tenants.
The way in which I have sought to do this is the way that was pursued by the House when it passed the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. That measure was hotly contested in the House but is no longer a matter of party political controversy. In the areas in which it has been in operation—primarily rural areas under Conservative control—it has met with consensus support and seems to have been a successful solution to a difficult problem. That solution is to place on the landlord a dual obligation with the local housing authority to find suitable alternative acommodation for the tenant when he ceases to be an employee of the landlord.
I should like to take up another point raised, prefectly fairly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Provan. It is not satisfactory to allow tied tenants to rely on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 when they cease to be in employment, because that Act does not lay a

strict obligation on the landlord to find suitable alternative accommodation for the employee. It lays such an obligation only on the housing authority. The accommodation that is furnished under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act may well not be suitable alternative accommodation to that which has been left by the tied tenant.
I should not want anyone to think that we are talking about a de minimis provision. A substantial number of households in Scotland are affected. Over 10,000 households are tied to authorities, either island or regional authorities. Although the great majority of local authorities behave responsibly and reasonably when tied tenants cease to be employees and retire, nevertheless some local authorities do not behave with the same generosity to employees who may have given them years of service.
The returns from the Shelter housing aid centres show that 18 per cent. of those coming to Shelter for assistance because of eviction from tied accommodation come from the local authority sector. There is, therefore, a limited number of cases in which eviction, at the end of a period of employment with the local authority, gives rise to housing stress. It is not right that this group of tenants should be denied the rights that we are conferring on other tenants in this part of the Bill. I do not think that the Minister accepts that it is right. I think that he would be anxious that the rights should be shared as widely as possible among different categories of local authority tenants.
I hope that the amendment has found a way of achieving what is required, by this group of tenants, but without conferring on them the right to purchase, which was the Minister's reason for rejecting the amendment in Committee. Having sought to meet his objection, I hope that he will accept the amendment and enable a modest but real and progressive improvement to be made in the terms and conditions on which tied tenants hold their accommodation from their landlords.

Mr. George Foulkes: Seeing the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on the Government Front Bench reminds me that some of us on the Opposition Benches also face him every Tuesday and Thursday in Committee on the


Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. The provision before us might be regarded as being somewhat parallel with some provisions included in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Yesterday, for example, we dealt in Committee with a clear manifesto commitment of the Conservatives at the last general election concerning the recommendation of a minimum sentence for murder. But the Government spokesman said quite clearly that, although this was one of their manifesto commitments, they had decided, after careful and mature consideration, that it was not right to press it any further.
As I have already indicated, the provision now before us is to some extent along similar lines. What has been suggested by the Government may sound great in theory but there are problems which arise in practice, just as there were in regard to the recommendation concerning a minimum sentence for murder. It sounds great in theory to offer every tenant the opportunity to purchase his council house. No doubt the Under Secretary of State will say that he has a mandate to implement that provision. Indeed, he has said so on several occasions. But my colleagues who served on the Standing Committee have shown some of the problems that arise in practice. Yesterday, for example, we discussed the problems that will arise in rural areas, where people will snap up desirable houses. The same will happen in the seaside areas. Such houses could well be sold off later as holiday homes.
We have also seen the problems which arise in practice concerning waiting lists, and the inevitability of waiting lists increasing in size. The suggested provision will also create problems for employers who need the houses concerned in order to be able to attract people to carry out particular jobs.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) on drafting his amendment so carefully as to enable the legislation to achieve what is necessary. He told me earlier—and he has said it in the Chamber—that he drafted his amendment to achieve a balance between the interests concerned. He has borne in mind the difficulty of the employer who needs to be able to make a house available for a future employee.
In these cases it is implicit that the house goes with the job. In many cases the house is provided for the job. I shall give some examples in a moment. Indeed, there are some in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State, and he may care to refer to them later.
On the one hand, there are the interests of the employer. On the other hand, there are the interests of the employee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, what we are suggesting is that, rather than there being the right to purchase a house which the employer will need subsequently because of the nature of the employment, the employee should have the right to suitable alternative accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) mentioned schoolteachers in country areas. I have this problem in my constituency. The house provided for the schoolteacher is often next door to the school. If the teacher occupying the house purchases it and then subsequently retires, obviously the house is no longer available for the next schoolteacher who is selected to fill the vacancy.
The same problem often arises with policemen, particularly in rural areas. It is the rural areas that will suffer most under the proposed legislation. Police houses are usually close to police stations, and it would be inappropriate for policemen to purchase such houses and be able to continue to occupy them when they retire from the police force.
Mention has also been made of prison officers' houses. There are such houses associated with Saughton prison in the Under-Secretary of State's constituency in Edinburgh. What happens when the prison officers move, retire, or are transferred, if they have had the right to purchase their houses? There are practical problems involved.
If the Secretary of State thinks that, after six months' tenancy of Bute House, he will be able to purchase it, he is quite mistaken, because we have another tenant waiting in the wings who will take over that house at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. George Robertson: We have had a short but important debate in which some of the complexities of the issue have been raised. We shall be


interested to hear the Minister's response. The hon. Gentleman made a protestation of principle in Committee. He made his view known and expressed his clear sympathy with the arguments that were being advanced on behalf of the many public sector tied tenants in Scotland. On 6 March the Minister said :
There is clearly an area where the Bill in its present form can be improved.
He later said :
I undertake to give the fullest consideration to ways in which the Bill could be improved to meet the sorts of problems which have been referred to by the hon. Gentleman this morning."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 6 March 1980 ; c. 960.]
In response, and presumably after careful consideration by the Scottish Office, the Government have come up with two amendments, one of which is technical. Amendment No. 258 is the Government's only response to the principle that the Minister articulated. To our eyes it is a totally inadequate response to the arguments advanced in Committee to which the hon. Gentleman attached his sympathy. The Government's amendments are clearly inadequate in dealing with the problem that we have identified.
We are talking about a tenants' charter and security for tenants in the public sector in Scotland. Much of the Conservative Party's manifesto during the election was designed, it said, to give tenants not only the right to buy but to ensure that tenants who chose not to buy their homes, or were not in a position to buy them, would have the same degree of security that the enviable home owners have in the eyes of the Conservative Party.
Tenants' rights have stopped short of the 10,000 who live in tied accommodation in Scotland that is owned by the public sector. Although the Government's amendments extend some aspects of the tenants' charter to some tied tenants in the public sector, they do not extend the most fundamental tenants' rights that the Government are conferring. The arbitrary judgment of the landlord is retained, whoever the landlord is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that there are more than 10,000 tenants in regional council employment in Scotland who live in tied houses by virtue of their contracts

of employment, and that more than 1,000 employees of district councils also live in tied accommodation. Although it is not a part of our argument, it is a fact that a higher proportion of tied tenants have children than those who live in property that is not attached to a job. It is a problem that goes way beyond the number of tenants who are in tied properties at any one time.
The Minister gave an assurance in Committee that he would reconsider the Government's position. He said that he agreed with the principle of our arguments. However, there is still a large defect in the arrangements that the Government will provide after Report.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said, the issue of security is not confined to security of tenure while the individual is in the house. Of course, that is one of the major principles on which we are concentrating our attention today. The other side of the coin concerns those who are obliged by virtue of their jobs to live in certain accommodation irrespective of whether they wish to do so.
Where accommodation for policemen is attached to police stations, clearly no other members of the community can inhabit those houses. It is often necessary for policemen to live in the accommodation that is close to police stations. I spent a large part of my early life in accommodation that was either attached to or part of police stations in Scotland. That will not change over night, however much the Government want to get rid of the accommodation that exists in the public sector.
4.45 pm
By virtue of their job, school janitors must live in houses that are often part and parcel of the schools. The job is not confined to hourly paid employment during the day. They have a total responsibility for the security and maintenance of the schools. They do not have the choice of buying other accommodation or renting other accommodation during the period in their working life when such a choice might be open to them. It is not within their power to accrue the service that in many local authorities is necessary to enable them to progress up the ladder of quality in housing.
At the end of a lengthy career—never mind about an interruption in the middle of it that might arise because of loss of employment through, for example, ill health or misconduct—an individual, be he a school janitor, a policeman, a teacher, a park keeper or a caretaker in a block of flats, will have to find alternative accommodation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Provan said, in the past those in that position have sought accommodation from local authorities. By and large—there have been few exceptions—they have been able to get the type of accommodation that they consider appropriate at the end of a career devoted to the public service. However, as my hon. Friend said, what local authority in its right mind, given absolute discretion and a legal right, will continue to give that privilege to those who have accrued the maximum discount qualification for buying a house but have not paid a penny in rent to the district council involved?
It seems that the Government have considered the problem even outside the Committee and the House. A letter was sent to Mr. James Morrell, the regional secretary of the General and Municipal Workers Union in Scotland, who represents many people in tied accommodation in the public sector. The Government made a number of bland statements of total complacency about the position in which such employees will find themselves.
Mrs. J. M. Clemie, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, said :
The provision which is made for such needs and the methods by which it is organised to minimise uncertainty and distress for those leaving tied accommodation are, of course, matters for the local authorities concerned in which the Secretary of State has no power to intervene.
The Bill is an assault on the rights and the authority of local authorities throughout Scotland. The totality of the package is an assault on their rights and discretion. The Government say in a letter that was sent to an organisation representing 120,000 workers in Scotland that this is a matter that will be left solely to the local authorities. The letter continues on the precise issue raised with the Secretary of State in the original correspondence. It states :

No doubt the position varies to some extent from area to area but, in general I understand that at present housing authorities, as you recognise, give special priority to applications for housing for those who are losing tied accommodation because of a change of occupation or through retirement"—
that is a statement of the present realities—
and I see no reason why they should not continue to do so in future.
If the Minister has learnt anything in Committee and from the debate, it must surely be that there will be widespread resentment at the assault on local government discretion that comes about through the Bill. Local authorities in Scotland will have no motivation to give preexisting privileges to those who leave tied accommodation. They may, within the letter of the law, decide that they can no longer give those privileges to those who are employed within their own sector.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are many local authorities in Scotland which, even at this time before the Bill is passed, have a system whereby when a person who is living in a tied house retires the local authority gives him the option of having another local authority house. Failing that, the person continues to live in the tied house, and the local authority makes another house available. I am thinking particularly of police officers who wish to remain in their houses, where the local authority makes other houses available, and of prison officers. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) referred to Saughton prison. In my constituency, when a prison officer retires from Peterhead prison, the local authority makes a house available to him and gives him preferential treatment.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member makes precisely the point that I am making. Until the Bill reaches the statute book, that is the arrangement. As the Scottish Office has said, and as we have said during the debate, to date local authorities have, without any obligation, or any legal requirement on them to do so, made sure that the human problems that are caused by people leaving tied accommodation are remedied and that they are found other accommodation.


The Opposition are drawing the attention of the House and the country to the fact that, following this legislation, local authorities will have good reasons for not continuing with those favourable provisions. They will be starved by the right-to-buy provisions of a large amount of their best housing stock. They will have no obligation to house people who are not in their employment and who have no direct relationship with them. Many people are apprehensive, including the Scottish Police Federation, which wrote to hon. members expressing its anxiety, the teacher in Huntley who wrote on behalf of his colleagues in rural schools, and the General and Municipal Workers Union which wrote to all hon. Members on 27 May expressing its anxiety. In its letter it said :
District councils who do not themselves employ the tied housing employee may be understandably reluctant to rehouse such people who may well qualify for the maximum purchasing discount for a council house through their previous tenancy, but who may never once have paid rent to the housing authority. If that reluctance does manifest itself, the priority previously accorded to our members in tied accommodation and to tied employees throughout Scotland, may well disappear.
Those apprehensions cannot be completely unfounded There is much resentment by a large number of local authorities in Scotland which know that the pre-existing conditions of favourable treatment for tied employees may disappear overnight. Those problems will continue to exist. Houses that were previously available will no longer be available. There will be no preference, because employees will be able to buy, probably at the maximum discount, the day after they take up the accommodation. Local authorities may feel that they have a moral obligation to rehouse, but tied employees throughout Scotland fear that they will be offered only the worst houses or the unlettable stock. That fear is more genuine than is imagined, and it is time that Conservative Members took it on board.
I conclude by drawing the attention of the House to the Government amendments in this selection. They represent the response of the Government to the points put to them in Committee. Those amendments would provide for certain parts of the tenants' charter to apply to those

people who would have been excluded under paragraph 2 of schedule 1. They would allow those tied tenants a number of the rights that would have been conferred upon them had the section of the Bill covering the tenants' charter been operable in their case. However, they fall back from the one fundamental point that is of concern to the majority of tied tenants—security of tenure.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, we have attempted to devise a series of amendments that would reflect the concern of people in tied accommodation as well as the reasonable anxieties of employees who must be accommodated in tied houses. We feel that that balance has been struck because the obligations, rights and duties of tenants are fairly balanced in our amendments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) said, if because of some technicality the amendments that we have put forward in good faith are defective, we ask the Minister not to hide behind those technicalities. The technicalities are only one feature of the Bill. More than 260 amendments have been put forward since we discussed the Bill in Committee. If the Minister really believes the protestations of principle and sympathy that he expressed in Committee, and if the amendments are technically deficient, we hope that he will reintroduce technically competent amendments that will give security of tenure to employees. The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976—a long and complicated piece of legislation—did what was previously considered to be impossible. It gave security of tenure to people who lived in tied cottages in England and Wales. It has worked effectively and well, and it has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union in England and Wales, It is not beyond the wit of man or of the Scottish Office to devise a series of amendments that will provide the same form of security of tenure that is enjoyed by a large number of people who live in tied accommodation throughout Scotland.
We trust that the Minister will give a favourable response to our amendments, despite the fact that the Government amendments give us no hope that he will.

Mr. Rifkind: I was interested in the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). He observed that, despite the terms of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not have the right to buy his residence in Edinburgh. The possibility that under the Opposition amendments he would at least have security of tenure gives the amendments a certain attraction, but I am not allowed to take that into account in determining my response to them.

Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State will have the right to suitable alternative accommodation only when his period in office ends.

Mr. Rifkind: That eventuality is so hypothetical that I do not think we need to take the matter further.
The position of tenants in tied housing is a matter of concern. There was a wide-ranging debate in Committee on the issue. I indicated then—I have no desire to withdraw my remarks—that the Government are concerned, and that they will give those tied tenants all the rights that are possible, consistent with the nature of the tied housing in which they live.
Clearly the House recognises—and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) who had responsibility for these matters, recognises—that those people in tied housing—housing that is tied because of the nature of their job—cannot have the same security of tenure that public sector tenants generally have been given by the tenants' charter. It is the Government's intention—so far as we can influence the matter—that the existence of tied housing should be reviewed by local authorities in order to determine whether it is necessary for it to remain tied and whether it is possible for a good proportion of that housing to be released, given that it no longer requires the connection between the person who lives in it and the job that he does.
5 pm
We would certainly hope, and we would ensure so far as it was within our power, that those houses which are presently classed as tied housing but which are not required for that purpose would first be offered for sale to the sitting tenants if they wish to purchase. If they do not wish to purchase and that housing

need not be tied, the most sensible course of action is that that housing should be transferred to the local housing authority. That is the proper recipient for housing no longer required to be tied but where the tenant does not wish to purchase the house. Transference to the local housing authority would automatically give these persons security of tenure and all the other rights that automatically will apply to tenants in local authority housing.
Therefore, I hope that all those houses which need not be tied at present or in the future, if the tenant does not wish to purchase them, can be simply transferred to the housing authority, and the Government will do all within their power to facilitate that move.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Minister has just made an important statement. Is he suggesting that, after a review, a prison house which the tenant does not want to buy will, because it is surplus to requirements for efficiency in the department, be offered to the district council free, or will he expect a price, knowing the arguments that take place about compensation and so on?

Mr. Rifkind: Using the example of prison officers' houses, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, a review is taking place as to what proportion of prison houses is required for operational reasons. Those that are required must be retained for that purpose. It would be the Government's intention to offer other houses to the sitting tenants—prison officers living in them. If they wish to purchase, they may do so. If If they do not wish to purchase or are unable to purchase, we would then have to consider whether it was appropriate that these be retained as prison officer houses. But as a general objective—and clearly one would have to look at the financial aspects if there was any change of ownership—the principle is that if housing is not required by a non-housing authority for tied accommodation purposes, there seems no sensible reason why it should continue to hold on to that accommodation.

Mr. Cook: rose——

Mr. Dick Douglas: Go on!

Mr. Cook: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) for his encouragement. These days one looks for encouragement in whatever corner of the party one can find it.
I should like to press the Minister a little further to clarify what he has just said. A note of unease comes into his description of the position with a house which ought not to be a tied house and which is not required for operational reasons and which the tenant does not wish to purchase or is not able to take up the offer of sale made to him. The Minister indicated that he would have to consider whether the house should continue to be a tied house. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government would not contemplate disposing of such a house on the market so long as the tenant within it was working with the prison department.

Mr. Rifkind: I give an absolute assurance to that effect. There is not the slightest question of jeopardising the interests of any existing tenant in any housing of that kind. I am happy to give that assurance, both to the hon. Gentleman and to such of his colleagues who appear to be interested in the point.
That is the general position that I would take concerning accommodation that need not be tied and where the authority that has the housing does not wish to continue to have it for that purpose.
In relation to the Opposition amendments, the question arises as to what should be the position about tied accommodation which must remain tied accommodation for reasons that are agreed in each particular case. The basic Opposition amendment seeks to require that the matter can be investigated by the sheriff and, indeed, to impose an obligation to offer alternative accommodation for the individual concerned.
Reluctantly, the Government do not feel able to support the proposition put forward in the amendment because it would be giving a statutory right to a tenant who was not a tenant of the district authority to be automatically allocated, thereby perhaps giving priority over people who have been on the waiting list of the local authority perhaps for a longer period. That does not seem appropriate.
Opposition Members have emphasised that, in their view—it has been supported by no evidence—because of the right-to-buy provisions of the Bill, local authorities in future will not continue the policy that they have pursued until now of acting in a responsible way in terms of allocation of housing to persons who are no longer able to occupy tied accommodation. If they believe that argument—I have no doubt that they do—it is nevertheless interesting that no one has yet, either during the Committee stage or today, given evidence of one local authority that has indicated that it intends to change its policy if the Bill becomes law.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rifkind: No, not at present.
We have heard of a number of allegations made by various people, in particular the trade unions, and among the Opposition and no doubt elsewhere, who think that this is what local authorities will do. But we do not need to speculate about these matters. If this were something that local authorities had already decided they would do, or if COSLA believed on behalf of the local authorities that it would happen, presumably there would be not speculation but hard evidence to back up the claim. I am delighted to say—and I have not heard the slightest evidence to the contrary—that no local authority, nor COSLA, has stated that it would either expect or wish to see this happening if the Bill becomes law.
I cannot guarantee that an individual authority may not act in this way. I am not suggesting that it is a conclusive matter. But what the Opposition have referred to is speculation, and no more than that, in a situation in which if there was evidence it could easily have been made available. The local authorities have made their views well known on many matters affected by the Bill, but so far as I am aware no local authority—we have certainly not heard any suggestion of it today—has stated that this is what it will do if the Bill becomes law.

Mr. George Robertson: How often do we have to try to drum it into the Minister's head that at present, until the Bill reaches the statute book—if it does—local authorities have total control over


their housing stock and, therefore, they are in a position to be magnanimous in the way in which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) has put forward, as they have been in the past? But why should they continue to do so when there is a wholesale assault on their rights as housing authorities coming forward in the Bill? There is no evidence, but the worries of the Scottish Police Federation, the General and Municipal Workers Union and the teachers who have written to us are evidence that there is a fear that that is what will happen.

Mr. Rifkind: Individual local authorities which are opposed to the Bill have not hesitated to give us on many other parts of the Bill their intentions and their views, to say what they intend to do and what they will not be able to do, and what they will have to change as a result of the Bill. If there is any evidence to support the fact that individual authorities will change the way in which they deal with previous tenants of tied accommodation, it is astonishing that at this very late stage in the consideration of the Bill they have not given us that view or indicated it to us either individually or through COSLA. Therefore, what Opposition Members are talking about is speculation, and I am afraid that it is little else other than speculation.

Mr. Foulkes: How will local authorities be able to provide adequate alternative accommodation when it has been bought by those who are living in it?

Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is opening up the whole issue of the right to buy. We have had many debates on that matter. The local authority will continue as it has done in the past to consider a resident of its locality who is leaving tied accommodation as being a person whose needs and requirements are similar to those of anyone else on the waiting list. If local authorities intend to change their policy and practice, it is interesting and revealing that at this very late stage in the consideration of the Bill none of them has declared it, and Opposition Members have not been able to give one iota of evidence to back up their speculation. I shall be delighted—and I am sure that Opposition Members will be pleased—if

their speculation turns out to be unfounded.
Reference has been made to the Government amendments before us. Whatever the Opposition's views about the adequacy of these amendments, they will certainly find them acceptable. They give to tenants all the rights that a public sector tenant has, apart from the security of tenure factor and the right to succession because clearly succession is incompatible with tied accommodation. They give to the tenant of tied accommodation the right to a written tenancy agreement and the right to challenge unreasonable tenancy conditions. They give to tenants the right to improve their accommodation, and the possibility of being reimbursed, at the discretion of the authority, when they move. They also give to such tenants the right to take lodgers and to sublet in exactly the same way as would be available to other public sector tenants.
Therefore, in these amendments the Government have sought to give all the rights feasible consistent with the nature of the tied accommodation. Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Provan, who was a Minister responsible for housing and has obviously had experience of this problem, recognise that to go significantly beyond that and to provide a full measure of security of tenure would clearly be incompatible with the nature of that accommodation.
I therefore recommend the Government amendments to the House, but I sadly say that I cannot recommend the other amendments, for the reasons I have given.

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister has once again given us a series of anguished statements in which he has expressed his good will and good intentions, but at the end of the day he has come up with precious little. The extent to which he seeks to defend his case would appear to be that, because no local authority has written to him, he is not aware that a problem will exist in the future.
Had this Bill been brought forward for its Second Reading today, the very different climate in local government in Scotland would be applied to it. As a result of the local elections, there is a different controlling group in the housing committee of COSLA, and there is a different spirit abroad in local government


housing in Scotland. As a result of the Labour Party's local election victories, people are acutely aware that the sale of houses will give rise to many dangers. We must share responsibility for the fact that some of our local government colleagues are not aware of the detailed implications of the relatively obscure questions that we have asked.
If the Bill is enacted, local authorities will become aware of the problems that we have sought to discuss. The Minister's complacency will be seen to have been

completely unfounded. Indeed, he will discover that he has opened a can of worms that will excite the anxieties of many of those who have contributed over the years to the common good and well-being of the Scottish people. We are not prepared to accept the excuses that he has offered. We shall, therefore, press our amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided : Ayes 214, Noes 262.

Division No. 354]
AYES
[5.15 pm


Abse, Leo
English, Michael
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Adams, Allen
Ennals, Rt Hon David
McKelvey, William


Alton, David
Evans, loan (Abordare)
Maclennan, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry
McQuade, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank
Magee, Bryan


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Fitch, Alan
Marks, Kenneth


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flannery, Martin
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maxton, John


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Beith, A. J.
Foulkes, George
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton. Itchen)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
George, Bruce
Newens, Stanley


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Bradley, Tom
Graham, Ted
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Neill, Martin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Palmer, Arthur


Campbell, Ian
Hardy, Peter
Park, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parker, John


Cant, R. B.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Haynes, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Cartwright, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pendry, Tom


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.
Penhallgon, David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hogg, Normen (E Dunbartonshire)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Home Robertson, John
Race, Reg


Cook, Robin F.
Homewood, William
Radice, Giles


Cowans, Harry
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Horam, John
Richardson, Jo


Crowther, J. S.
Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cryer, Bob
Huckfield, Let
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cunlfffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen Noith)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robertson, George


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Janner, Hon Greville
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Sever, John


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheerman, Barry


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée


Dixon, Donald
Kilfedder, James A.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dobson, Frank
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dormand, Jack
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Douglas, Dick
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dubs, Alfred
Leadbitter, Ted
Soley, Clive


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Springs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Eastham, Ken
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McCartney, Hugh
Straw, Jack


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Surrmerskill, Hon Dr Shirley




Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Welsh, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
White, Frank R.(Bury & Radcliffe)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Whitehead, Phillip
Wright, Shella


Tilley, John
Whitlock, William
Young, David (Bolton East)


Tinn, James
Wigley, Dafydd



Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Watkins, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Mr. George Morton.


Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fanner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Ancram, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Madel, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Fletcher-Cooka, Charles
Major, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Marland, Paul


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marlow, Tony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol


Bell, Sir Ronald
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawby, Ray


Bonyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Best, Keith
Gow, Ian
Mellor, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gower, Sir Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Blackburn, John
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Blaker, Peter
Greenway, Harry
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Grist, Ian
Moore, John


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Bright, Graham
Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Mudd, David


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murphy, Christopher


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hampson, Dr Keith
Myles, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John
Neale, Gerrard


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Haselhurst, Alan
Needham, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hastings, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael


Buck, Antony
Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Tony


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Bulmer, Esmond
Heddle, John
Nott, Rt Hon John


Burden, F. A.
Henderson, Barry
Onslow, Cranley


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Butler, Hon Adam
Hill, James
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parris, Matthew


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Channon, Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pawsey, James


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pollock, Alexander


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Porter, George


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifte)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cockeram, Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prior, Rt Hon James


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Cope, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Ralson, Timothy


Corrie, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rathbone, Tim


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lang, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dover, Denshore
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lee, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Durant, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Hugh


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Eggar, Timothy
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Emery, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Faith, Mrs Shella
Mackay, John (Argyll)
Silvester Fred


Farr, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sims, Roger







Skeet, T. H. H.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)
Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Speller, Tony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Trippier, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Squire, Robin
Trotter, Neville
Whitney, Raymond


Stanbrook, Ivor
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wickenden, Keith


Stanley, John
Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Waddington, David
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wakeham, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Waldegrave, Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek



Tebbit, Norman
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Temple-Morris, Peter
Waller, Gary
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Handen S)
Ward, John
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Thompson, Donald
Warren, Kennth

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 4, after ' Act ', insert ' or subsection 8(k) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take amendment No. 32, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
'(k) the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Defence.'

Mr. Douglas: Having listened attentively to the Government's spokesmen on this Bill throughout the Report Stage, I am intrigued by their method of approach. The Under-Secretary, who is a very competent advocate, addressed the Bill as if it were a form of declaration of independence. It was as if he were saying that all men and women had equal, inalienable rights—to life, liberty and to buying a council house. But he did not rest his case on council tenants only. The Secretary of State, in replying last night—Hansard is not yet available, so I cannot say how many times he used the words "public sector" said that this was a charter not for council tenants or for SSHA tenants but for the public sector.
My amendment relates to a number of people in my constituency, in an area of Dunfermline and an area of Crombie. Most of my remarks relate to residents of Brucefield, Dunfermline, who are, par excellence, in the public sector. I will not burden the House with the history of this area and the developments that have taken place there since 1939–40, but I must point out that these individuals came to Dunfermline at the outbreak of the Second World War because of a national need—the need to re-establish the dockyard in Rosyth. I do not claim that they were, in effect, conscripted to the constituency, but they responded to

a national need of that time and the houses in this area resulted from that response and from the need to re-equip the dockyard for strategic naval purposes.
There is no doubt at all that these houses are in the public sector. I see that the Minister concedes that. Therefore, as an advocate, if he excludes this category of individuals from the so-called benefits of the Bill he must have a very good case for such exclusion.
The Under-Secretary and others have made a great play of the liberties of individuals who are queuing up to buy local authority houses. The Property Services Agency, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, gave an indication about the houses in the Brucefield area as long ago as 1977. The PSA wrote a letter to the tenants. I am grateful to M. W. A. Sayers, the chairman of an organisation of tenants in the area, who sent me a copy of the letter of 12 October 1977 which says :
When all the tenants of the MD Brucefield houses were written to earlier this year about the sale of houses, you replied intimating an interest about buying the house that you occupy.
The houses have since been valued and in the case of your own house the sale price to yourself as the sitting tenant would be £2,800. I would therefore be pleased to hear from you as soon as possible if you are prepared to acquire the property at this figure. If I do not hear from you by the end of October it will be asumed that you are no longer interested.
This letter is not intended to be a formal offer or commitment to sell, but merely a means of discovering which tenants are able and willing to buy their houses in order to assist the Department'.
There is a clear case here of the Government being "willing" to sell. Subsequent correspondence indicated that a change of Government had brought about reexamination of the issue. Another letter


to Mr. Sayers, dated 17 January 1980, from the Scottish Office said :
Dear Mr. Sayers, I am replying to your letters of 16 December to the Prime Minister and Geoffrey Finsberg about your wish to purchase your house, since housing matters in Scotland are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The legislation recently introduced into Parliament giving most public sector tenants—
note the word "most"—
the right to buy the houses in which they live will be directed principally at houses let by district councils, new town development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association in their role as housing authorities meeting general accommodation needs. Consideration is being given, however, to the policy regarding sales to sitting tenants as it is to be applied to Government Departments and agencies.
5.30 pm
I understand that a substantial number of tenants—I surmise between 15 and 25 per cent.—are willing to buy, which is far in excess of the average number of those indicating their willingness to buy local authority houses. What proposals does the Department of Environment, acting for the Ministry of Defence, have? Does it propose to sell to individual tenants or give them the same rights as other public sector tenants? No. The proposal is that the 370 houses will be sold as a job lot. The Government are failing in their responsibility to these tenants, bearing in mind the reason why many of them came to the area. If these proposals are carried through, their security of tenure may be undermined. About 60 houses are at present vacant. A speculative builder may buy the houses, refurbish some of them and start jacking up the rents of the rest, which will disrupt the social and economic fabric of the area. The tenants met last night. They are incensed by the Government's proposals. They do not see why they should be treated differently from other public sector tenants.
The tenants have an excellent case. I shall not go into the argument over the sale of local authority housing, which is not germane to this issue. The Government have a responsibility to these tenants. How do they intend to protect their security of tenure?
In the previous amendment the hon. Gentleman sought to secure the tenancies

of such people as police officers in the public sector. It is a difficult problem. I have come late to the Bill with this case, and my amendments may not be technically correct. However, that can be remedied in another place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remove the anxiety experienced by these important individuals in this important area.

Mr. Rifkind: I recognise the sense of uncertainty that the constituents of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) must be experiencing, given the indefinite future of their accommodation. The amendments would give the right to buy to all tenants of houses owned by the Ministry of Defence or the Department of the Environment, including those required for operational reasons. They therefore go far beyond the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
The detailed administration and development of Brucefield is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall put the hon. Gentleman's points to him. I recognise the force with which he puts them.
I was interested in his assessment that up to 25 per cent. of the tenants are interested in purchasing their homes, if given the opportunity. I understood that the figure was far less. I shall refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as that is a significant proportion.
If these houses are sold by the Property Services Agency, there is not the slightest risk to the security of tenure of existing residents. If the houses were sold, they would be sold with sitting tenants, who would have the full protection of the Rent Acts.
I understand that there is the possibility of a tenants' co-operative in the area seeking to purchase a group of houses as a single unit. That is an attractive option, which may resolve the difficulty in a straightforward manner. I also understand that, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Environment approached the local authority to see whether it would be prepared to take over the houses. That, equally, would resolve the problem. It would ensure that those who wished to purchase their homes could do so, and would give full security


to the other tenants. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into details. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment. I have no locus to concern myself with the details.

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman has been forthcoming. Will he consider meeting me and representatives of the tenants, who are forming themselves into a loose association, to discuss the implications?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall consider whether that is appropriate. I am not certain whether it is, as it is a matter more for the Department of the Environment. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know whether I consider such a meeting helpful or possible. I shall ensure that the uncertainty that his constituents are facing is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore feel able to assure his constituents that we understand and appreciate their concern.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am not trying to embarrass the Minister. I support the idea that surplus public authority houses should at least be offered to the local authority. I do not want to raise the question of compensation. Although the hon. Gentleman does not always value it, he would have our support if the offer was made to the public authority. To that extent he has a locus. He would have to provide the funds or capital permissions to the district authority.

Mr. Douglas: In view of the hon. Gentleman's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 5, after ' tenant ', insert
'or, where there are joint tenants, any one of them'.
The amendment provides that, where there is a joint tenancy, only one of the joint tenants need have been occupying publicly-owned housing for three years prior to their application to purchase for all of them to have the right to buy. That was always the intended effect of the Bill and it is already provided for in the Housing Bill for England and Wales.

The need for the amendment arises as a result of an oversight in drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 12, leave out ' they ' and insert ' such members'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 8.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendment No. 7 does not alter the effect of the Bill but is for clarification purposes. Questions arose in Committee about whether it was intended that the requirement of six months' residence in the house to be purchased should attach to the tenant as well as to members of his family. It is appropriate that it should attach simply to members of the family, as the requirement for the tenant is provided for elsewhere in the Bill.

Amendment No. 8 changes the effect of the Bill by providing that no member of a tenant's family who is residing with him in breach of a tenancy obligation may be included as of right as a joint purchaser, regardless of the length of time for which they have resided in the house in question. The amendment fulfils an undertaking to the Opposition in Committee.

Mr. Millan: I thank the Minister for tabling amendment No. 8 which arises from a suggestion of mine.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made, No. 8, in page 2, line 15, after ' months ', insert
'and their residence in the dwelling-house is not a breach of any obligation of the tenancy'.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 26, after ' a ', insert ' qualified'.
The effect of the amendment is to prescribe that where an authority proposes a valuer other than the district valuer, that person must be qualified to do the job. It was always intended that that should be so but anxiety was expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The amendment is a response to his anxiety.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 38, after ' occupation ', insert
'by the tenant or by any one of the joint tenants or by his spouse'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 41.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendments deal with the meaning of the word "occupation" but in different contexts. Amendment No. 41 gives landlords discretion to count towards discount and qualifying time for the right to buy time spent living with parents by a person who has succeeded them to the tenancy of a publicly-owned house. A person might live with aged parents and might not technically be the tenant but, over a period of years, that person might have been paying the rent. For example, a single woman might be supporting her parents but never have become the tenant of the property. If such a person can satisfy the local authority, it is right that her support should be recognised.
Similar discretion is provided to local authorities selling under the present general consent provisions. Authorities which wish to use the power are required to seek the Secretary of State's specific consent.

Mr. Cook: Can the Minister explain the meaning of the word "occupation" in this context? It is not defined in the interpretation clause. I have not been able to find another definition of "occupation" in the Bill.
The Government amendments refer to a period of occupation rather than a period of tenancy. Amendment No. 16 throws wide open the term "occupation" not only to the tenant but to a spouse who might have been married to another tenant. Will it be legitimate for a tenant to found the calculation of discount on a period which his spouse has spent in occupation of another council house, perhaps while being married to another tenant?

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Minister referred to single daughters or sons who have been responsible for paying their parents' rent for some years. Such occurrences are frequent in Scotland and are often the subject of discussion and anxiety. If a local authority refuses to exercise its discretion will that be the end of the road? Are the Gov-

ernment thinking of laying a concrete obligation on local authorities, or do they intend to leave the matter open?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government considered whether a statutory right would be appropriate. The difficulty is that the cases involved are somewhat vague. Reluctantly, and sadly, we concluded that it would be difficult to put that right in legislative form in a way that could not be abused. Under the present system local authorities have acted flexibly and with understanding. The evidence suggests that they will continue to do so.
Perhaps I did not explain that amendment No. 16 is slightly different from amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 16 deals with a drafting ambiguity which provides that the discount above the basic 33 per cent. is to be reckoned on the basis of occupation. It has bean pointed out that it does not, however, specify whose occupation is referred to and that it might be interpreted as embracing members of a tenant's family who are included as joint purchasers. The amendment ensures that, when determining the rate of discount, the tenant's own occupation of the accommodation should be used and not any longer occupation by a member of his family or anybody else who is a joint purchaser. The tenant's length of occupation will be the only criterion in determining the discount.

Mr. Cook: The amendment states :
by the tenant or by any one of the joint tenants or by his spouse".

Clause 1(10) provides the definition of occupation. Reading that part of the Bill with amendment No. 16, it appears that the tenant will be able to found the calculation of discount for additional years in respect of a period of occupation by his spouse, perhaps when married to another tenant. That would be extraordinary. Perhaps the Minister should reconsider the matter.

Mr. Rifkind: It is not intended that that should be the outcome of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is the reverse. It is to ensure that the length of occupation by the tenant will be taken into account when determining discount entitlement. However, I shall look into the matter and, if there


is an effect which is contrary to that which is intended, there will be an opportunity to deal with it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 9, leave out ' (a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments :
No. 19, in page 3, line 9, leave out ' outstanding debt ' and insert ' cost'.
No. 20, in page 3, line 10, leave out from ' house ' to end of line 15 and insert
'but where the market value of the dwelling-house determined under subsection (4)(a) above is less than the outstanding debt as above, the landlord, when failing the tenant, may seek the consent of the Secretary of State to the sale at the lesser of the two standards.'.
Government amendment No. 21.
No. 22, in page 3, line 16, leave out ' outstanding debt ' and insert ' cost'.
No. 23, in page 3, line 16, leave out from ' means ' to end of line 17.
Government amendment No. 24.

Mr. Wilson: Amendment No. 18 is a paving amendment for amendment No. 20. The object of amendment No. 20 is to provide a new formula for dealing with houses, the market value of which is less than the book value. Where a house is valued at under book value, its disposal at that price, which is permissible under the subsection, could leave an outstanding debt unpaid from the funds generated by the sale. That outstanding debt in turn would fall upon the ratepayers or the housing account. It could lead to higher rates and rents to service a debt where an asset has been disposed of at a loss.
COSLA expressed reservations about the impact of the subsection as drafted. It pointed out that the Scottish Office has adopted a phrasing and a formula different from that in the English Bill. That is not necessarily wrong. But COSLA points out that it may be faced with a more difficult financial position because of the wording employed by the Government. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain what representations have been made by COSLA. Has he managed to persuade COSLA that there is no such

difficulty? If so, much worry will be avoided.
The Government, I understand, have taken the view that when a house is sold at the lower of the two prices—at a price below book value—the loss sustained by the local authority will be met out of profits gained from the sale of other houses of higher value. I doubt whether that is correct. The costs of housing built in recent years have been high. If these houses were sold and the large discount applied, some difficulty could result. If one takes into account historic levels of inflation, even allowing for the fact that properties tend to have gone up in value to a greater extent than would normally be the case and have more than kept place with inflation, the discount will reduce any real profit that might have been made. It is not unreasonable to say that, if a loss is caused to local authorities, the Government, in pushing a policy of sales, should be expected, to shoulder any of the capital losses that might occur.
The Government will probably refuse to adopt that course. Amendment No. 20 does not seek that end. It seeks to make a general rule that no house will be sold at less than its book value—its market value—unless and until the consent of the Secretary of State has been obtained. This would allow the local authority to make representations to the Secretary of State if a number of houses fell into that category. I cannot imagine local authorities seeking Government permission to deal with a small number of houses ; but they would have no protection if a large number of houses could be sold, leaving a high book debt that would have to be borne in the manner I have mentioned. The local authorities should have an opportunity to put their arguments, in given circumstances, to the Secretary of State and to seek his permission. Some local authorities might use this arrangement to stop sales.
I have, therefore, put into amendment No. 20 the right of the tenant to seek such permission from the Secretary of State if he or she runs into any blocking difficulties of a technical nature from the local authority. The tenant, in turn, will be able to put reasons to the Secretary of State. This might provide a better formula than at present contained in the Bill.

Mr. Millan: I should like to say a word about amendments Nos. 19, 22 and 23, in my name.
The Minister is aware that the Opposition do not like this subsection, but I do not wish to go back over the arguments that took place in Committee. The subsection is complicated. It contains three negatives. One is never sure whether one is finishing up with a negative or a positive. The Minister has been at pains to demonstrate that what is contained in the Bill is the same as that which is in the English Bill, although the wording is different. It is difficult to accept his argument.
The appropriate wording in the Scottish Bill is "outstanding debt" whereas the word used in Clause 7(2) of the English Bill is "cost". The outstanding debt should be less than the cost. Presumably, if it means something different from cost, it means the cost incurred but not paid off. That is what the subsection says—
' outstanding debt ' means any undischarged debt arising from—
and then lists costs.
It seems that this is different form the English Bill, which simply talks of the costs. My amendments would remove the words "outstanding debt" and substitute the word "cost" to place the Bill on all fours with the English Bill. If there is a difference—the Minister can perhaps explain—the Scottish Bill would be less favourable because the outstanding debt would be less than the cost. The cost is the gross cost. The outstanding debt is the gross cost less anything that has been paid off.
I am not persuaded that the Bills are the same. I am not arguing that Scottish Bills and English Bills should be drafted in the same way, but it seems a pity that, on such a matter as we are discussing, we should have entirely different wordings that have already raised considerable apprehensions, whether justified or not, among Scottish authorities that they are being treated less favourably than English authorities.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Dundee East (Mr. Wilson) will recall that the provisions relating to outstanding debt were introduced by the Government in acknowledgment of the concern of local

authorities that a house that had recently been constructed might be sold, because of the discount, at a significant loss to them. It was thought appropriate that the outstanding debt factor should be taken into account.
It seems to the Government that it should be a question of outstanding debt, or market value, whichever is the less. If the market value is lower than the outstanding debt, it seems inappropriate that a tenant should be obliged to pay more for his house than it would cost on the open market. That seems a reasonable proposition. Equally, if the reverse is the case and the outstanding debt is lower, it is right that the tenant should be able to take into account his discount entitlement when considering the question of his right to buy.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the views of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Councillor Kirkpatrick of the housing committee of COSLA has pursued a long campaign to try to convince the Government that the Scottish Bill is significantly different from the English Bill. I hoped to write to Councillor Kirkpatrick, but, unfortunately, he ceased to be a councillor—I hasten to add that he was an independent—as a result of the local elections. However, I wrote to the convention indicating why we took the view that Councillor Kirkpatrick's belief was inaccurate. The secretary of the convention, Mr. Spiers, his written to me indicating that his preliminary view is that the Government are correct in coming to that conclusion. He is looking into the matter in greater detail.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) raised the question of the difference between "cost" and "outstanding debt". Cost is a term used in the English Bill. The effect of the change proposed by the Opposition would be minimal. In the first few years after a housing debt is incurred, repayment of capital is so small that there is little variation between outstanding debt and cost. The concept of outstanding debt has been used in Scottish local government finance for many years. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that the Opposition, when in Government, used the term in their circulars on house sales. Any sales that were permitted had to be at prices not less than the outstanding debt. This is a Scottish concept. The


practical consequences are minimal. We have followed the previous Government in using this approach.

Mr. Millan: There is, then, a difference between the "English and the Scottish legislation. The hon. Gentleman says it is minimal and that there is no need to bother about it. but there is a difference. Cost is higher than the outstanding debt. The Minister has been at great pains throughout the proceedings on the Bill to say that the two pieces of legislation are on all fours.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the situation. The point which COSLA was at one stage making——

6 pm

Mr. Millan: I am not concerned about COSLA.

Mr. Rifkind: Until recently the point at issue was that, because the Scottish Bill refers to outstanding debt or market value, whichever is the lesser, it was different from the English Bill, which does not make such alternative provision. I think that it has now been cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not concerned with that. However, I have never sought to suggest that outstanding debt is exactly the same as cost. There is a minimal distinction. We have used the term "outstanding debt" because it is a concept which has been traditionally used in Scottish local government finance. It was the concept used by the Labour Administration with regard to the sale of council houses in the few cases where it was permitted. Therefore, there seemed no reason to depart from that concept.

Mr. Millan: With respect, I was not raising the point about COSLA. That matter may well be settled to the satisfaction of COSLA. However, in the letter which the Minister sent to COSLA and which was issued to the press—it was written in rather arrogant and indignant terms—he took great pains to say that the two Bills were absolutely identical That is not the case, because cost is greater than outstanding debt.
I do not care what COSLA thinks about this. Perhaps the Minister will turn his attention to what I think about it, because COSLA is not present. It is un-

fortunate that the two Bills are not exactly the same. I shall not press this amendment to a Division, but I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to look at the matter before the Bill eventually reaches the statute book.

Mr. Rifkind: I am quite happy to look at it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the letter which I had written to COSLA. COSLA raised a particular point, in that it claimed that there was a difference between the Scottish and English Bills. It was in relation to that point that I replied that there was no distinction. COSLA is satisfied with that, and that is all that I need to explain in regard to the letter to COSLA to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. However, I shall certainly look at the point that he has made.

Mr. Millan: What about the Government amendments?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman has correctly reminded me that I have not yet commented on the Government amendments which are included in this group. I am grateful to him.
Government amendment No. 21 is a technical amendment to ensure that in cases where the Secretary of State wishes to depart from the normal practice the statutory instrument should be subject to the scrutiny of the House. Government amendment No. 24 meets a point raised by COSLA, that occasionally with newly built houses an estimate only can be given as to what the outstanding debt is. The amendment enables that to be done.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 3, line 14, after ' instrument ', insert
'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.

No. 24, in page 3, line 25, at end add—
'(7A) Where at the date of service of an offer to sell under section 2 of this Act any of the costs referred to in subsection (7) above are not known, the landlord shall make an estimate of such unknown costs for the purposes of the said subsection.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 3,line 31 at the end add
'or the common good of any such council, or any trust under the control of any such council ;'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments :
Government amendments Nos. 28 to 30.
No. 31, in page 4, line 17 at end insert—
'(k) the Forestry Commission'.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 simply correct oversights in drafting. Amendment No. 30 is a drafting amendment, which replaces an Opposition amendment that was accepted in Committee. The House will recall that the Government accepted an amendment relating to area health boards, but that was defective, in that area health board houses are technically owned by the Secretary of State and not by the boards themselves. This drafting amendment clarifies that situation.
I should briefly like to comment on Opposition amendment No. 31. I say "briefly", if only because it is my intention to recommend acceptance of the amendment. Perhaps that will indicate to the Opposition that if amendments are accepted without their being moved it is something that they should consider in the future. I am happy to recommend acceptance of that amendment, which relates to the Forestry Commission. I hope that the House will approve it.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Can the Minister indicate which bodies are covered by these amendments, and whether there are any trusts under the control of any such council? Would that include a whisky benefactor who has trust houses in Perth?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure about that example. However, amendment No. 27 provides that the time spent in a house, where a landlord was the common good of or a trust under the control of a regional islands or district council, will count towards discount and qualify time for the right to buy. That is consistent with clauses 1(2) and 10(2), which provide that tenants of houses let by common goods or trusts of islands and district councils should have security of tenure and the right to buy. Therefore, if a person comes within the criteria of a common good or a trust under a local authority, the consequences will be as I

have indicated. I am sorry that that has not answered the hon. Gentleman's specific question, but I would need to look into the detailed circumstances of any whisky trust of the kind to which he referred.

Mr. Brown: That does not really answer the question. All that the Minister has done is to read his brief. The answer is that he does not know. I presume that this is not an imaginary situation and that such houses must exist, although I am unaware of them. I am a little apprehensive about whether or not we know what we are doing, as we have no information.

Mr. George Robertson: I do not intend to take too long on this matter. It would be fortuitous both for the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) and for the Gannochy trust and others if the amendment embraced the new schedule——

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I should make clear that amendment No. 27 is a purely drafting amendment. There are no policy changes compared with the Bill as it left Committee.

Mr. Robertson: We accept the Minister's assurance. We are grateful that the Government have accepted amendment No. 31. There was considerable disappointment when it was not among the 260 or so amendments that appeared on the Amendment Paper. I believe that many people who at present live in Forestry Commission houses will be more than pleased to know that they, too, will share in this great privilege of qualifying for these extravagant discounts that the Government are making available to sitting tenants.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made : No. 28, in page 3, line 31 at end add—
'(aa) the Commission for the New Towns ;'.

No. 29, in page 3, line 38 at end add—
'(cc) a housing co-operative within the meaning of section 5 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 or of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 ; (ccc) the Development Board for Rural Wales ; '

No. 30,in page 4, leave out line 17 and insert—
'(j) the Secretary of State, where the house is used for the purposes of a health board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Services (Scotland) Act 1978 or for the purposes of a corresponding board in England and Wales ; or the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, where the house is used for the purposes of a Health and Personal Services Board in Northern Ireland ; and the statutory predecessors of any such board.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Amendment made : No. 31, in page 4, line 17 at end insert—
'(k) the Forestry Commission'.—[Mr. George Robertson.]

Amendment made : No. 34, in page 4, line 18, after ' apply ', insert—


'(a) where a landlord mentioned in any of paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of section 10(2) of this Act is not the heritable proprietor of a dwelling-house ;
(b) where a landlord of a dwelling-house is a housing co-operation within the meaning of section 5 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 and neither it nor a body mentioned in the said paragraph (a) of section 10(2) of this Act is the heritable proprietor of the dwelling-house ; nor
(c)'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 4, line 20, after ' system ', insert
'and the services of a warden'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 36, in page 4, line 21, at end insert
'or where a dwelling-house has features which are substantially different from those of ordinary dwelling houses and which are designed to make it suitable for occupation by physically disabled persons'.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendment No. 35 is in-intended to clarify the effect of subsection (9), which deals with exclusion from the right to buy of sheltered housing of the elderly or the disabled. Uncertainty has been expressed by local authorities—it was also expressed in Committee—about the precise meaning of this subsection. The amendment clarifies it by indicating that where a warden is in existence the housing is excluded from the right to buy. We are also discussing an Opposition amendment, but I shall reserve my comments on that until Opposition Members have spoken on it.

Mr. George Robertson: Either there is confusion in my mind, and in the minds

of a number of others, or the Government are doing something very peculiar. Government amendment No. 35 makes a certain change to the existing provisions in the Bill by qualifying the word "system". Of course, it does nothing to the exclusion of the right to buy, which is what the Opposition amendment is about. The odd thing is that the Opposition amendment is a faithful reflection of the wording in the English Housing Bill, which has virtually completed all its stages.
There is no doubt that paragraph 4 of schedule 1 of the English Housing Bill excludes a dwelling-house that is
one of a group of dwelling-houses which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons of pensionable age and a social service or special facilities are provided in close proximity to the group of dwelling-houses for the only or main purpose of assisting those persons.
In the English Housing Bill, under that definition, there is a total exclusion of sheltered housing from the right to buy in England and Wales.
It will be interesting to see why the limited amount of sheltered accommodation in Scotland will not be excluded from the right to buy. There is the prospect of sheltered housing being bought and the only protection that is apparent in the Bill is a pre-emption right under clause 4.
There is a limited amount of sheltered accommodation in Scotland and it is recognised by most parties in the House that it is inadequate even to meet the criterion laid down by successive Governments. The bulk of the sheltered accommodation coming on to the housing market consists, by and large, of expensive conversions on individual houses by individual local authorities. Anything that will deter local authorities from converting further houses into sheltered accommodation or into houses with specific provision for the disabled would be deeply regrettable. It may be that I am confused——

Mr. Rifkind: indicated assent.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister indicates that I am confused about that. The Opposition amendment would bring the law in Scotland into line with the admirable law, in this respect, south of the border. That would be welcome, and


we await with interest the explanation of the Government.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is confused. It is the Government's intention that sheltered housing will be excluded from the right to buy. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee the provision that applied originally only to sheltered housing for the elderly was extended to include sheltered housing for the disabled. The hon. Gentleman's concern is for housing that, though it may not be sheltered, has been specifically adapted or designed to meet the needs of the elderly and the disabled.
In our view it is appropriate that the right of pre-emption should exist in respect of that housing. Many disabled persons may be young people, who may live in a house for many years. It seems unfair that because they are disabled they should be excluded from the right to buy enjoyed by other people. The opportunity for a local authorinty to include a right of pre-emption meets a legitimate need. If the house is alienated within a certain period of time, the local authority can reacquire the property. That seems to be a proper approach to the subject.

Mr. Millan: We are not at all happy with the answers given by the Minister. The amendment that he moved makes the subsection more restricted. It adds another qualification to the question of facilities and provides that there must be the services of a warden as well as a call system. That potentially limits the subsection even further.
There are substantial differences in wording between the Scottish Bill and the English Bill. The English Bill is couched in more expansive terms in dealing with exclusions. We have discussed this matter on a number of occasions, but we have not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion. I had hoped that the Minister would say that he would be willing to consider the wording here and also the wording in relation to the pre-emption clause, and that he would then put down any necessary amendments in another place.
The Minister has not given that undertaking and we shall wish to return to the matter in another place. Unless we receive such an undertaking we shall press

amendment No. 36 to a Division. However, if the Minister is genuinely forthcoming—I do not wish him to say that he will look at the matter in order to avoid a Division—we will not press the matter to a Division. The Minister must know that there is considerable concern that in this context we are not being treated as favourably as England, and unless I receive a firm assurance from the Minister, which we can follow up in another place, I shall press the issue to a Division.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government recognise that the position of elderly and disabled people in specific types of housing deserves special treatment. For that reason we made amendments in Committee to meet that point. I accept that there is a particular difference between the amendment before us and the provision in the English Housing Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are many differences. He approves of some and disapproves of others. It has been recognised for many years that the position in Scotland is different from that in England. There is, for example, a much larger public housing sector in Scotland.
I acknowledge the concern that is felt on the matter and I am genuinely prepared to consider it again. It is not a matter of great dogma in relation to the elderly and the disabled. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that we shall reach a different conclusion, but I can assure him that I shall genuinely consider this point to see whether the provision in the Bill as it now stands is appropriate, or whether further amendment is justified.

Mr. Millan: That is helpful. Of course there are provisions in the Bill that differ from the English legislation. I do not necessarily object to that. The needs of disabled people, however, are not substantially different north ond south of the border. If anything, the provision for the elderly and the disabled in Scotland is somewhat inferior to the provision in England. For that reason the provisions in the Bill should be more favourable to the elderly and the disabled in Scotland in the matter of sheltered housing and other facilities than they are in England.
Since the Minister is genuinely prepared to consider the matter again I shall not advise my hon. Friends to divide on


amendment No. 36. I have no doubt that this matter will be pursued in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed : No. 39, in page 4, line 21, at end insert :
'(9A) This section shall not apply to dwelling-houses in an area which is designated a reserved area by the islands or district council within whose area it is situated where the Secretary of State, on the application of the islands or district council concerned, makes an order, which shall be made by statutory instrument, to that effect.

(9B) An order under subsection (9A) above may be applied for where in the opinion of the islands or district council concerned further sales in the reserved area would be unduly detrimental to the interests of applicants on its housing list or of tenants of the council who are seeking transfers to other houses belonging to the council or would upset the balance of housing stock belonging to the council.'—[Mr. Millan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided : Ayes 221, Noes 266.

Division No. 355]
AYES
[6.20 pm


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Adams, Allen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McCartney, Hugh


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ennals, Rt Hon David
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Ashton, Joe
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McKelvey, William


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Ewing, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Field, Frank
Magee, Bryan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fitch, Alan
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fitt, Gerard
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin
Maxton, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foster, Derek
Miller, Dr M. S. (Eas Kilbride)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foulkes, George
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Brown, Ronald w. (Hackney S)
George, Bruce
Morton, George


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stanley


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Graham, Ted
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Campbell, Ian
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ogden, Eric


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
O'Neill, Martin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hardy, Peter
Palmer, Arthur


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Park, George


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parker, John


Coleman, Donald
Haynes, Frank
Parry, Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pavitt, Laurie


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Cook, Robin F.
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Penhaligon, David


Cowans, Harry
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Crowthsr, J. S.
Homewood, William
Race, Reg


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank
Radice, Giles


Cunlitfe, Lawrence
Horam, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Howells, Geraint
Richardson, Jo


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Janner, Hon Greville
Robertson, George


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Deakins, Eric
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Sever, John


Dempsey, James
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheer man, Barry


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Dixon, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Dobson, Frank
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée


Dormand, Jack
Kilfedder, James A.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Douglas, Dick
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Dubs, Alfred
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Leadbitter, Ted
Soley, Clive




Spearing, Nigel
Tilley, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Watkins, David
Winnick, David


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Weetch, Ken
Woodall, Alec


Strang, Gavin
Wellbeloved, James
Woolmer, Kenneth


Straw, Jack
Welsh, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
White, Frank R.(Bury & Radclille)
Wright, Shella


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip



Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. James Tinn




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Loveridge, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Fairgrleve, Russell
Lyell, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Faith, Mrs Shella
McCrindle, Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fa[...], John
Macfarlane, Neil


Ancram, Michael
Fanner, Mrs Peggy
MacGregor, John


Arnold, Tom
Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fookes, Miss Janet
McQuade, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McQuarrie, Albert


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fox, Marcus
Madel, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Major, John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marland, Paul


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fry, Peter
Marlow, Tony


Best, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Biggs-Davison, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mather, Carol


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mellor, David


Bowden, Andrew
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Brinton, Tim
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Brittan, Leon
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Hanram, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Budgen, Nick
Hastings, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Myles, David


Burden, F. A.
Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard


Butler, Hon Adam
Meddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Henderson, Barry
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James
Normanton, Tom


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Onslow, Cranley


Chonnon, Paul
Hooson, Tom
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Chapman, Sydney
Hordem, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Churchill, W. S.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parkinson, Cecil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parris, Mathew


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Cockeram, Eric
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pawsey, James


Cope, John
Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Corrie, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, George


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cranborne, Viscount
Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David
Ralson, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Gorman
Rathbone, Tim


Dover, Denshore
Lang, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Rhodes James, Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lee, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eggar, Timothy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Julian


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)







Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Walters, Dennis


Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Ward, John


Rossi, Hugh
Tapsell, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Royle, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thompson, Donald
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Richard (Aldrldge-Br'hills)
Thornton, Malcolm
Wickenden, Keith


Silvester, Fred
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Trippier, David
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam 'ton)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Viggers, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wadding Ion, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Squire, Robin
Waldegrave, Hon William



Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)



Stanley, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Steen, Anthony
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Waller, Gary
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 251, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
'(9A) This section shall not apply to dwelling-houses :
(a) which have been listed under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972

as being of special architectural or historic interest ; and
(b) which are in a Conservation Area designated under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.—[Mr. David Steel.]

Question put, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 263.

Division No. 356]
AYES
[6.30 pm


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Adams, Allen
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Heffer, Eric S.


Alton, David
Deakins, Eric
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dempsey, James
Home Robertson, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Dewar, Donald
Homewood, William


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Donald
Hooley, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank
Horam, John


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Dormand, Jack
Howells, Geraint


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas, Dick
Muckfield, Les


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dubs, Alfred
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Beith, A. J.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Hon Greville


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dunnett, Jack
John, Brynmor


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Eastham, Ken
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bradley, Tom
English, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Kilfedder, James A.


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Ewing, Harry
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Field, Frank
Kinnock, Neil


Buchan, Norman
Fitch, Alan
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Fitt, Gerard
Lamborn, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Flannery, Martin
Leadbitter, Tod


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cartwright, John
Foster, Derek
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Foulkes, George
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
George, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Conlan, Bernard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Robin F.
Ginsburg, David
Magee, Bryan


Cowans, Harry
Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, J. S.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Maxton, John


Cryer, Bob
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Meacher, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Davidson, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)




Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Robertson, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Morton, George
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Tilley, John


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Rooker, J. W.
Tinn, James


Newens, Stanley
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watkins, David


Ogden, Eric
Sever, John
Weetch, Ken


O'Halloran, Michael
Sheerman, Barry
Wellbeloved, James


O'Neill, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Welsh, Michael


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
White, Frank R.(Bury & Radcliffe)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Short, Mrs Renée
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Whitehead, Phillip


Park, George
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Parry, Robert
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Penhaligon, David
Soley, Clive
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Steel, Rt Hon David
Woodall, Alec


Race, Reg
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Straw, Jack
Wright, Shella


Richardson, Jo
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Young, David (Bolton East)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Mr. Clement Freud and


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Mr. Russell Johnston.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Corrie, John
Hordern, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Costain, A. P.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Cranborne, Viscount
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Ancram, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Arnold, Tom
Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Denshore
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Sir Ronald
Eggar, Timothy
Kimball, Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knox, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lamorrt, Norman


Best, Keith
Faith, Mrs Shella
Lang, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Blackburn, John
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lawson, Nigel


Blaker, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lee, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bowden, Andrew
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Loveridge, John


Bright, Graham
Fry, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Brinton, Tim
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCrindle, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Macfarlane, Neil


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacGregor, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McQuade, John


Buck, Antony
Gray, Hamish
McQuarrie, Albert


Budgen, Nick
Greenway, Harry
Madel, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Grieve, Percy
Major, John


Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Marland, Paul


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Butler, Hon Adam
Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gummer, John Selwyn
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Mather, Carol


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hannam, John
Mawby, Ray


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Channon, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chapman, Sydney
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mellor, David


Churchill, W. S.
Hawksley, Warren
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Heddle, John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Barry
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moate, Roger


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, James
Monro, Hector


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Montgomery, Fergus


Cope, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Moore, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hooson, Tom
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)







Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mudd, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Ridsdale, Julian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Myles, David
Rifkind, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Rossi, Hugh
Waddington, David


Newton, Tom
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, John


Normanton, Tom
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nott, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Onslow, Cran ley
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wall, Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldrldgc-Br'hills)
Waller, Gary


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Silvester Fred
Walters, Dennla


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Sims, Roger
Ward, John


Parkinson, Cecil
Skeet, T. H. H.
Warren, Kenneth


Parris, Mathew
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hertrd & Stev'nage)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wheeler, John


Pawsey, James
Squire, Robin
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Stanley, John
Wickenden, Keith


Porter, George
Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Winterton, Nicholas


Proctor, K. Harvey
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wolfson, Mark


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tapsell, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ralson, Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Norman



Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Temple-Morris, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Donald
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 4, line 27, at end add—
'; or
(iii) in the discretion of the landlord, as the child of a person mentioned in paragraph (i) above who has succeeded to the rights of that person in dwelling-house occupation of which would be reckonable for the purposes of this section, but only in relation to any period when the child is over the age of 16 years ;'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 4, line 29, after ' shall ', insert
', and any interruption in occupation of more than 12 months and less than 24 months may,'.
The effect of the amendment is to give authorities discretion to count for discounts on sale periods of the purchaser's tenancy or occupation of relevant public sector housing that preceded a break in occupation of more than 12 months but less than 24 months. The matter was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) and I undertook to see whether a discretion could be provided for local authorities. The amendment provides that discretion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 4, line 36, leave out from ' 1955 ' to ' Queen ' in line 37.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take Government amendment No. 44.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendments delete the reference to voluntary aid detachments serving with the Royal Navy from the definition of Regular Armed Forces of the Crown. Since the detachments have not existed for more than 20 years, and discount entitlement goes back only 20 years, they are not relevant to the calculation of discount and no reference is necessary to them in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 4, line 38, leave out from ' and ' to ' and ' in line 39 and insert
'the Women's Royal Naval Service'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 2

PROCEDURE

Mr. Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 5, line 19, leave out "2" and insert "3".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendment No. 47.

Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has already drawn my attention to the fact that my amendment is technically defective because it would result


in a redundant two-line passage in the Bill. When I tabled the amendment I did not anticipate that the deletion of "2" and its replacement by "3" could be defective, but I recognise that it would result in a redundant passage in the Bill. I shall therefore be pleased to withdraw the amendment, following an undertaking by the Under-Secretary that he will introduce an amendment in another place to give effect to my intention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish not to move his amendment, or does he intend to ask leave to withdraw it?

Mr. Cook: I said that I shall be pleased to ask leave to withdraw the amendment following an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the Government will address themselves to the matter in another place. I am sorry if I misled the Chair. I am sure that the Chair is as eager as I am to hear the Minister's assurance.
The intention of the amendment is to draw attention to the narrow timetable within which local authorities will have to respond to an offer to buy by a tenant. An authority will be obliged to make a response within three months during the first year of the legislation and within two months in subsequent years.
My amendment is grouped with a Government amendment of which I was not aware when I tabled my amendment. The Government amendment seeks to extend, in a qualified way, the period within which the applicant can make an objection if he regards a condition attached to the offer of sale as onerous or unacceptable. The period within which an applicant can exercise his right to apply to the Lands Tribunal is extended from one month to two months.
6.45 pm
The applicant has only himself and his immediate family to consider when turning over in his mind the conditions attached to an offer. The area of consultation and the possible area of dispute are much narrower than in the matters that have to be considered when a local authority is responding to an offer to purchase.
In responding to an offer, a local authority has to make four separate deci-

sions, which are detailed in clause 2 (2). It has to determine the market value, the discount, the price—though that will follow naturally from the first two decisions—and whether it wishes to attach any conditions. Finally, it has to draw up the legal offer of sale to the applicant.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary defended the two-month period on the ground that he had been advised by the district valuers that they would be able to produce a valuation within six weeks. He therefore proposed a limit that was only two weeks in excess of that six-week period.
In Committee we obviously failed to impress upon the hon. Gentleman that much more is involved in a local authority's response than the sending of the district valuer to look at a house. Even after the authority has received a valuation it has to prepare a legal offer of sale.
The Under-Secretary is an advocate and not a solicitor, and therefore he has no firsthand experience of conveyancing. I assure him that when I have brushed against conveyancing I have found that problems sometimes arise that could not be readily resolved in the two-week gap that he is allowing. On top of the straght-forward matters of legal process, a local authority, carrying out a proper and responsible democratic check on what its officials are doing, may wish to submit the offers to purchase to the full democratic scrutiny of its councillors before the offer of sale is submitted to the applicant.
I served on a local authority when it was customary to circulate to members a list of the houses that we were prepared to sell in any one month. As most local authorities have a four- or five-week cycle of meetings, it will be impossible to feed such matters through the democratic process in less than five weeks.
For all those reasons, the period of two months appears to be unrealistically short. This is not a party point ; it has been raised by a number of local authority officials and councillors who do not necessarily share the Opposition's political views or prejudices about the Bill.
The Government received representations from COSLA on the matter when the convention was not dominated by the


Labour Party. COSLA said that if the period of two months was to be retained it should be confined to the serving on an applicant of a notice detailing the valuation and the discount but that local authorities should not be required to submit the formal offer to sell, because that would require further time, both so that it could be put in a legal form and so that the formal approval of the authority could be obtained. That seemed a reasonable and responsible compromise, and it is unfortunate that the Government did not accept it.
If the Under-Secretary is unable to distinguish between a simple notice setting out the terms of a sale and a formal offer to sell, he must take on board the fact that the period of two months provided in the clause is far too short.
What we are discussing is not simply the timetable within which an efficient, effective and well-manned local authority could carry out the calculations necessary and make an offer to sell. We are discussing a period of time the expiry of which gives rise to a fresh legal right, namely, the right to submit a case to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. I should not have thought that it would be unreasonable to allow a three-month period before that legal right was triggered, even if it were anticipated that most local authorities would, in most cases, be capable of making a formal offer to sell within a period of two rather than three months.
If the Minister is unable to accept the amendment and confines local authorities to the timetable set out in the Bill he will place two bodies in great difficulty. He will place the Lands Tribunal in great difficulty, because it will receive a substantial number of cases that it otherwise might not have received. It is only fair to point out that the Lands Tribunal for Scotland is a small body with a full-time complement of five, and clearly it will not relish the prospect of having unnecessary cases brought before it because the timetable set out in the Bill is unrealistically tight.
The other group that will be placed in difficulty consists of the local authorities. They will be faced with the task of meeting an unrealistically tight schedule at the very time when the very same Minister is encouraging them to lay off staff, particularly in the administrative sections.

This will necessarily handicap their ability to respond in terms of the timetable in the Bill.
I therefore earnestly ask the Minister to think again about the matter and to consider whether he is not placing too onerous a burden on local authorities. I ask him to recognise that if he seeks to press through a Bill that is highly contentious, and if, in addition, he makes procedural points that are highly unrealistic, he cannot complain if he fails to get the collaboration and co-operation of local authorities.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who has made a very powerful case in terms of the Minister's own approach and self-interest.
If there is one thing that is clear it is that there will be an enormous amount of trouble over the workings of the measure. The Minister will find his position almost untenable if he tries to enforce a timetable that is totally unrealistic. That is the clear implication of the two months' time limit set out in the clause.
I have been a solicitor employed in local government. I know the pressures, and I am aware that at the moment they are being greatly increased as a result of Government policy. Even today we have had rumblings from the Government Back Benches about the number of people employed in local government. This is a recurrent theme. It is totally unrealistic for the Minister to try to impose this enormously tight strait-jacket of a timetable at the same time as he incites local authorities to lay off staff and insists that there should be a very strict limitation on any increase of staff.
Legal staff are quite hard to recruit, and they also come expensive, if I may put it in that way. It is nonsense to insist on a timetable that will give those who are opposed to the Bill every good cause for saying that it is not only doctrinally wrong, misguided and misconceived but also practically impossible to implement in the terms in which the Government have set it out.
I entirely agree with the point made about the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. To put into legislation a situation in


which, after only two months in the second or the third year, a person is in statutory breach if he has not concluded the quite complicated series of operations envisaged in clause 2(2), is to invite trouble. It may greatly increase the work load of the Lands Tribunal, which at the moment is no doubt an admirable but somewhat sleepy organisation, which every now and then is called upon to adjudicate on a matter concerning crofting tenure or agriculture tenancy, or to consider a dispute about a condition in a deed dating back to the early nineteenth century. Suddenly it will be faced with a flood of applications and allegations that local authorities are in statutory breach when in fact the local authorities will be in that position only because they have been faced with an unrealistic timetable and have been prevented from taking on the staff required to meet it.
It may have been suggested that market values can be set by district valuers within six weeks of application, but as a solicitor in private practice and one who has worked for local authorities, that seems to me to be an almost totally unbelievable claim. From my experience I suggest that it will be a totally new departure in terms of the service given by district valuers, who are overworked and take a very long time to reach a decision. I do not believe that district valuers will be able, within six weeks, to do what is required of them.
The whole scheme, therefore, is based on a totally false premise. Unless the Minister is able to say that he expects an enormous expansion of the staff in district valuers' departments we shall be in great difficulty. Whether or not he has lived for too long in the cloistered calm of the Faculty of Advocates, he must at least have heard the distant rumblings of reality. He must know that what he is suggestig is deeply mistaken.
I suggest to the Minister that we should not invite additional irritations by having an unrealistic timetable. We have enough to argue about in terms of principle without having this sort of pettifogging nonsense. Let the Minister at least accept the very modest proposal that the period of two months be extended to three months. Even that may cause practical

difficulties, but I suppose that we must all compromise on occasions. I hope that the Minister will be sensible and will accept this very modest step towards making the system workable.

Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Cenral (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) last spoke to the local authorities or consulted them for their views on this matter. They may or may not be aware that the local authorities indicated that the orginal period of two months would create difficulties for them, particularly in the first year, because of the expected flood of applications from tenants interested in purchasing their own homes. The huge number of local authorities were expecting was thought likely to create the difficulty. It was because the Government acknowledged that the tremendous response of council tenants might create a difficulty in the short term that an amendment was moved in Committee, providing that in the first year a period of three months would be permitted for the purpose and that only after that would a period of two months be regarded as appropriate.
In our discussions with local authorities since then they have given us every reason to believe that they are quite satisfied that a period of three months will be sufficient for the first year and two months sufficient thereafter. COSLA is quite content with the existing proposal, as is the chief valuer. No one—apart from the two hon. Gentlemen—has suggested otherwise.
I suspect that we may be seeing the first fruits of a recent meeting that took place beween Labour councillors and Labour Members to try to devise a means of suggesting that it is impossible, with the best will in the world, for local authorities to seek to implement their statutory responsibilities. I have to tell the two hon. Gentlemen that they have picked the wrong one if they think that this is an example to prove their point. COSLA is quite satisfied with the Bill in its present form. The amendment made in Committee was at the request of COSLA. The Government responded to its request. The hon. Gentleman may not be satisfied, but the local authorities certainly are.
Government amendment No. 47 deals with the situation in which both the tenant and the landlord seek an extension in terms of the matters dealt with in the amendment that should be permitted. It seems quite appropriate that where there is agreement between the parties the matter should not automatically go to the Lands Tribunal if a little more time will prevent the need for that. If the local authority is able to satisfy the applicant that it needs a little more than three months in the first year or two months in the second year there is no obligation on the tenant to go to the Lands Tribunal. Only where there is disagreement should the tenant exercise his statutory right.
The local authorities are quite happy with the Bill, and on that basis I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Mr. O'Neill: In the past I have had occasion to castigate the Falkirk district council, which, when under Scottish nationalist control, was very enthusiastic about the sale of council houses, but in the dealings that I had with the council, it was at pains to point out that the burden that would be placed upon it as a result of the proposed legislation—this was prior to the local government elections—was such that it would not be able to undertake it. It pointed out that problems would arise, in the form of extra staffing, which it could not afford to finance.
I am surprised that the Minister is so complacent about the likely results of the Bill. I think that he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

7 pm

Mr. Cook: Only the passing of time will tell us whether COSLA is satisfied with the present form of the Bill. I suspect that as we discuss these matters over the months between Royal Assent and the Government's demise we may discover that COSLA is not so satisfied with the present shape of the Bill as the Minister is trying to suggest.
The issue is not whether most local authorities believe that they can accomplish the two-month schedule. I entirely share the reservation of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). What local authorities think that they can do and what they

subsequently achieve are often at variance. The point is that if they fail to meet the two-month schedule a legal remedy may be conferred on the applicant. It is all very well for the Minister to say that that legal right does not have to be exercised. The fact remains that the Secretary of State has the legal right. It is created by the clause.
As I indicated earlier, my amendment is defective. I do not wish to distress my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) by inviting him to support a defective amendment. In any event, I do not wish to leave the Minister with the impression that the Opposition will be happier if we achieve a more workmanlike and realistic procedure, in which councils are obliged to sell off their council houses. The hon. Gentleman should be concerned to ensure that every procedure in the Bill is realistic, practicable and pragmatic, so that there can be no doubt that any failure to achieve the timetable is the result of wilful neglect or deliberate delay on the part of the local authority. I am sorry that the Minister has not grasped that. He is creating a timetable that is unrealistic. Many of the local authorities that will seek to implement the Bill will not be capable of meeting that timetable. It is inevitable that there will be a state of great confusion in Scotland for the two or three years that the Bill remains on the statute book.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 6, line 19, after ' month ', insert
'or, with the consent of the landlord given in writing before the expiry of the said period of one month, witin two months'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 7, line 16, leave out from ' the ' to ' for ' in line 18 and insert
'application of regulations made under section 5(3) of this Act to obtain a loan of the amount'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments :
Government amendment No. 50.
No. 74, in Clause 5, page 10, line 19, after ' applicant ' insert—
'(iv) such other information as may be prescribed to allow the landlord or other body to


consider whether the applicant is a suitable person to receive a loan under this section'.
No. 75, in page 10, line 24, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State shall specify by regulations made by statutory instrument the methods to be used for calculating the maximum amount of loan which might be granted in respect of any loan application under this section and the circumstances in which no loan shall be granted.
(2B) The order made under subsection (2A) above shall not come into effect unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.
Government amendments Nos. 76 and 77.
No. 78, in page 10, line 30, leave out from ' correct ' to end of line 35 and insert ' either (a)'.
No. 79, in page 10, line 38, leave out from beginning to ' or ' in lane 43 and insert ' subsection (2A) above'.
Government amendment No. 81
No. 82, in page 10, line 44, leave out from ' that ' to end of line 45 and insert—


'(i) subsection (3A) above is not complied with, or
(ii) that in accordance with subsection (2A) above no loan can be granted or
(iii) that in the opinion of the landlord or other body the applicant is not a suitable person to receive a loan under this section.'.


No. 84, in page 11, line 16, leave out ' (4)(b) ' and insert (3).

Mr. Rifkind: The main Government amendment in the group is No. 77, which removes the reference to a minimum requirement relating to the net income of the applicant for a mortgage. The effect of the clause in its present form would mean that even if a tenant were seeking not a full loan but a partial loan, he would not be able to be provided with it if his income was below the minimum requirement imposed by the Secretary of State.
On reflection, it has been recognised that that provision might have undesirable results if the applicant is seeking only a small loan. It seems appropriate for the Government to introduce the amendment. When this issue was discussed in Committee the Opposition expressed support for the proposal but emphasised that they considered it to be acceptable only if it were part of a wider package, which clearly it is not.
Government amendment No. 81 is a direct consequence of the change in clause 5(3). It restricts an authority's ability to refuse loan applications on the ground of inaccurate information by providing that the inaccuracy must be of material consequence. If there is a small, trivial inaccuracy, it seems reasonable that that should not be justification for refusing a mortgage.
The remaining two Government amendments are consequential. Reference is made to the minimum net income requirement as the reason for a sufficient loan not being granted. As a consequence of the change which I have explained, it is now necessary to refer to the application of regulations made under clause 5(3).
The effect of Government amendment No. 76 is to give a tenant the right to have any inaccurate information in his application for a loan pointed out to him by the landlord and the right to correct such information. It is clearly appropriate that these matters should be facilitated as the amendments propose, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Millan: We are utterly opposed to clause 5 in its present form. It will compel local authorities to offer loans in circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for anyone to offer a loan and in circumstances in which the applicant has been unable to obtain a sufficient building society loan, or any such loan. The clause will compel a local authority to lend money to an applicant to buy a house that the local authority probably does not want to sell to him, and, in some instances, to do it in circumstances in which no building society in its right mind would want to offer a loan. I consider this to be one of the worst clauses, and an abuse of public accountability.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe it to be right for a local authority to offer a loan at a rate lower than the current rate set by the building society? Does he mean that it is not proper for an authority to offer a differential rate?

Mr. Millan: Is the hon. Gentleman asking about the rate of interest?

Mr. Johnston: Yes.

Mr. Millan: Clause 5 has nothing to do with the rate of interest. There is


another clause that provides that the rate must be higher, not lower. Nothing that I have said so far has anything to do with rates of interest
Local authorities will be compelled to grant a loan in circumstances in which the applicant has not been able to obtain a loan from a building society. Presumably the building society will withhold loans for good reasons. The local authority will have no discretion.
The Secretary of State will introduce regulations. When we asked in Committee to see what might be included in the draft regulations we were given a document that could be described only as laughable. It contained elementary errors. There were omissions, mistypes and misquotations. Practically every error that one could think of was contained within it. The Minister had to admit that the document was not a serious contribution to the discussion on the clause. However, we have seen nothing else.
I said in Committee that the document did not even mention the applicant's net income, although that happened to be in the clause. The Minister has overcome that deficiency by removing the reference. That will be done by amendment No. 77. We do not even know whether that is sensible, because we do not know whether the draft regulations will impose these obligations on the local authority. The Government will be in considerable trouble in another place unless the regulations are available in draft form so that the impact of the clause is known.
An extraordinary feature is that in every case an offer of a loan will be made to the applicant, even if it is only 2½p. If the conditions are met there will be nothing in the clause that will allow a local authority not to offer a loan. Provided the information that has been provided to the local authority is in order, the regulations will provide that some sort of loan will be offered. If that is not so, the clause is remarkably ill-drafted.
The way in which the clause now reads, with the omission of subsection (3)(b)—that is, the effect of amendment No. 77—means that the local authority will have to give the applicant some form of loan. That is ludicrous. In Committee it was pointed out theoretically—and as far as I can see now, practically—that

even people who receive supplementary benefit will be offered some sort of loan to enable them to buy their council houses. As any building society will say, there axe many people who would love to buy their homes but who do not have the income or other circumstances that would make that sensible. Building societies would not offer a loan to people in such circumstances. Under this clause, people will be offered loans and the local authority will have no discretion in respect of the suitability of the applicants in the offer or refusal of a loan.

Amendment No. 74 adds a little to the information that the applicant must provide to the local authority—
and such other information as may be prescribed"—
so that the Secretary of State will be able to make a decision at the end of the day—to enable the landlord or the local authority to consider whether the applicant is a suitable person to receive a loan.

The gross income of some people may be satisfactory to a building society, but they may have a record of other debts, and perhaps current debts, which make them unsuitable for loans. Moreover, we must remember that the application for the loan need not merely be in the name of the tenant. It can be in the name of the tenant and other members of his family, because under another provision of the Bill an application to buy may be in the name of the tenant and other members of his family. As far as we understand from the document that was circulated to us the income of a 16-year-old, who may not live in the house very long after the date of the application, will be taken into account in determining eligibility for a loan.

It is inevitable, therefore, that local authorities will spend the ratepayers' money, and that they will be compelled to do so, even against their better judgment. Amendment No. 74 gives a certain amount of discretion to local authorities, but only in circumstances in which the Secretary of State has so prescribed. That is a minimal provision.

Amendment No. 75 would allow the regulations that are to be made by statutory instrument—we do not like this way of proceeding, but the procedure is laid down in the Bill—not only to explain the maximum amount of loan but to lay out the circumstances in which a loan should


not be granted. Whether or not we refer to net income in the clause, or the regulations it is indispensable for a provision to be included whereby below a certain limit a loan should not be granted. That is a standard provision of the building societies. If amendment No. 75 is not included, some sort of loan, even though it may be a minimum loan, will be granted.

Amendment No. 82 would allow the local authority to refuse a loan on the basis that the information had not been accurately supplied by the applicant or that, according to the regulations, a loan could not be granted under the legislation, or that in the opinion of the local authority the applicant was not a suitable person to receive a loan. I hope that the Minister will not say that this would give carte blance to local authorities to turn down applicants on the basis that they are not suitable. There are other provisions in the Bill which allow the applicant, if he is aggrieved by a refusal to take certain actions—for instance, to apply to the sheriff.

I am not averse to there being certain rights for the applicant who is turned down in a cavalier way, and I hope that the Minister will not see that as a serious objection to amendments Nos. 75 and 82. I strongly believe that it is monstrous to tell local authorities that they will have no discretion or judgment in the question whether an applicant is suitable. The applicant may be a tenant who is constantly in arrears with his rent and who has had to be taken to court, and yet, as I understand, the local authority will have no discretion to turn down an application for a loan from him if he meets certain requirements—so far, not completely disclosed—that the Secretary of State may determine by statutory instrument.

That is the sort of ridiculous obligation that will be placed on local authorities under clause 5, and under the regulations. We discussed this matter in Committee. We received many unsatisfactory answers to our questions then, but this was the most unsatisfactory. The Government amendments will not take the matter further in any satisfactory way. I shall therefore press our amendments strongly.

Mr. Dewar: I rise to support my right hon. Friend with enthusiasm. I was not a member of the Committee, and therefore I did not take part in the detailed arguments on this matter. The provision for the granting of loans by the local authorities under the clause is one of the most startling of many startling aspects of the Bill. If the Government were to tell the building societies that they intended to lay down a simple financial requirement on income, and that if that requirement was met they must lend, there would be a deafening scream of pain. But that is what the Government are telling local authorities.
My right hon. Friend is correct in saying that there should be some element of flexibility, and that there should be a provision that would allow an element of discretion. It is extraordinary. If, for instance, the eldest child of one of the tenants who might use this provision were to make an offer for a flat in the private sector and were to ask the district council for a loan, a different provision would apply. As I understand it, in those situations a loan would be entirely discretionary.
Therefore, we would have the ludicrous situation in which we had obligatory lending for a house in the public sector but if someone was trying to raise a loan from the district council for a house in the private sector, a different set of rules would apply. The incentive to use discretion to refuse a loan in the private sector will be particularly strong given the enormous demands on local authority time and the tremendous artificial loading of loans which will result from these extraordinary proposals.
There is another anomaly. In the private sector, if, as very often happens, a landlord decides that he does not wish to continue as a landlord but wishes to sell, an offer may well be made to the sitting tenant at, in effect, a discount. I have been familiar with this many times in Glasgow, where a trust may own a tenement property and is anxious to get out because of continuing administrative problems. It comes along with an extremely attractive offer to the sitting tenant. The tenant wishes to take it up and asks the local authority for a loan. The chances are that when that


person discovers that the loan is discretionary and may well be refused because of pressure on the loans department arising from the provisions under this Bill, he will feel extremely bitter about the inequitable treatment he is receiving. The whole thing is riddled with anomalies and injustices. I dislike the clause, but if we are to be landed with it, as we are, my right hon. Friend's amendments are only common sense.
The whole area will be fraught with discontent. In Glasgow the district council is now offering loans at 11¾ per cent. interest. Under the Bill, it will be forced to raise the rate of interest to a minimum of at least the going rate with building societies, which is 15 per cent. That, presumably, would apply not only to people who are borrowing under this Bill to buy a council house but to all district council loans in the private sector. If Conservative Members think that they will be thanked for that piece of Conservative social engineering, they have another thought coming.
I should like to enter a very strong protest about that side effect, which will hit thousands of people at the bottom end of the owner-occupier scale. That is the vicious thing about it. Conservatives are constantly saying that they want to help those who are marginal potential owner-occupiers, who are trying to get into home ownership. These are very often the people who will be borrowing from local authorities. The effect of all this package of deals on loans is that local authorities will be forced to raise interest rates for these people very substantially indeed, at least in the city of Glasgow. If that is the Conservatives' philosophy, I like it not.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has put his linger on one of the most iniquitous provisions in the Bill, which will hit hard those people to whom the Secretary of State would refer—no doubt on the lines that he did last night—as the small, local people, people with low incomes buying small houses, who will find that because they cannot get a building society mortgage they will have to pay through the nose to a local authority, on which they will now have to rely.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that it is not simply that the effect of the Bill will be to increase the rate of interest on local authority home loans

to the present building society rate, but if on a future occasion—as was frequently the case during the 1970s—the building society rate falls below the local authority rates, on this occasion they will not follow that building society rate. They follow the building society rate only when it is higher than that required by the local authority, but one does not get the advantageof following the building society rate when it is less than is required by the local authority.

Mr. Dewar: I absolutely agree. The whole thing is oppressive. It is oppressive on a section of potential home owners who can least afford it. I get extremely angry about the hypocrisy which is built into this provision. It is this advantage to the public sector as against the private sector which worries me most. The Minister will be aware that Glasgow district council, if we are to believe press reports, is about to restrict all loans in the private sector to 75 per cent. of the purchase price. Here again, not only will the loan be discretionary and not only will Conservative policy deliberately force up the cost of the loan for people borrowing from the district council in the private sector, but the total available for loans is likely to be much lower than for those who are taking the option of buying their houses under this legislation.
In strongly supporting my right hon. Friend's point about the need to be a little more selective in terms of the previous record of the tenant and so on—it is only prudent at least to establish machinery that allows that to be taken into account—I enter my strong protest about the effects of all these policies on those who borrow from district councils in the private sector. My strong impression is that when inevitably they come up against the consequences of these manoeuvrings of the Conservative Party, they will be very angry about this very oppressive and unfair legislation.

Mr. Rifkind: Opposition Members have quite correctly pointed out that the conditions under the Bill for those buying their council houses are quite different, not only from the granting of a mortgage by a building society, but from a local authority mortgage for a person wishing to buy a house in the private sector. They are quite right to make the distinction. It is right and proper that there should be a


distinction, for what I would have thought were very obvious reasons. The major difference is that where a local authority is providing a mortgage for a person wishing to buy a house in the private sector, the local authority has to find the cash to give it to the applicant. It has to do this in that way. Therefore, it is right and proper that it should be a discretionary matter.
But we are dealing with something quite different. We are talking about the local authority that is selling a house to the tenant where the tenant will get the mortgage from the local authority to which he is presently paying rent. Therefore, there is no public expenditure implication. There is no need for the local authority to find a single penny in order to do this. The local authority has the house as security for the loan. In effect, all that is happening is a bookkeeping transaction. Instead of paying rent to one account of the local authority, the tenant, as mortgagor, will be paying his mortgage repayment to the other account of the local authority.

Mr. Cook: The Minister is distinguishing between loans for the purpose of purchasing a council house and loans for the purpose of purchasing a house in the private sector. He will not dispute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that in one regard they are identical, and that is the effect of the working of clause 29. Both those borrowing to buy council houses and those borrowing to buy small tenement flats will pay a substantially higher percentage interest than they do at present.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right concerning the rate of interest. But it does not arise within the amendments. Therefore, I shall not dwell on the matter at this stage.

Mr. Cook: It is true.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not dispute it, and at the appropriate time the hon. Gentleman can comment on that matter. But what we are concerned with now in these amendments is mortgage entitlement. I was indicating what I thought was a perfectly obvious reason why the circumstances are total different when a local authority is selling its own houses to

tenants who are already paying it rent and instead will be paying it in mortgage repayments.

Mr. Millan: The two things are closely connected. This is where the fact that we do not have even a draft of what will be in the regulations is deplorable. The Minister must be intending to provide in the regulations, presumably, that the maximum amount of loan that can be offered to a local authority tenant will involve him in a weekly or monthly obligation in mortgage repayment which is significantly higher than the rent that he is paying now. If the Minister is not suggesting that, the amount of loan that will be offered to the tenants concerned will be absolutely derisory with the current rates of interest. Is it or is it not a fact that it will be the Government's intention to compel local authorities to offer loans which will involve repayment obligations on the part of the tenants concerned very much greater than anything that they are paying in rent now?

Mr. Rifkind: The extent to which a mortgage repayment will compare with the rent will obviously vary from tenant to tenant. It will depend on the rent that they have been paying, and on the proportion of the house for which they are paying out of savings as opposed to through the mortgage. It will depend on a series of factors. I am quite willing to concede that in a very substantial proportion of cases, the mortgage repayment will be greater than the rent payment. However, that will not apply automatically. In a significant proportion of the houses that have been sold, tenants have required only a part mortgage from the local authority. They have met the remainder from their savings. It therefore does not follow automatically.

Mr. Millan: I did not ask whether it followed automatically. What view will the Government take when they set out the maximum amount of loan to be offered under the terms of the regulations? Maximum amounts will be laid down. The Government must have an opinion. Will the average wage earner, paying an average rent, pay significantly more under the terms laid down in the regulations? Why does not the Minister let us see the draft regulations so that we can make a proper judgment?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman's question would have been reasonable if rents bore some relation to income. Irrespective of whether a tenant is on supplementary benefit or a salary of £15,000 a year, he pays the same amount of rent. It is therefore impossible to reach a conclusion about whether tenants will pay more in rent than in mortgage repayments or vice versa.

Mr. Millan: I am asking a specific question. The Under-Secretary of State continues to dodge it. I shall ask that question more specifically. Will the average wage earner, paying the average local authority rent be entitled to a loan—under the regulations—that will involve him in weekly or monthly mortgage repayments that are significantly higher than the average rent for a council house? Will he give a straight answer?

Mr. Rifkind: I could have given the right hon. Gentleman a specific answer if he had given me some notice. I cannot be expected to give an immediate answer, based on a certain set of assumptions. I shall ensure that the matter is considered and will write to the right hon. Gentleman, telling him the answer. However, he cannot expect an immediate answer to such a complex question.

Mr. Millan: The issues were raised in Committee. With great difficulty we obtained a draft document from the Government during the Committee stage. As I recollect, it appeared during discussion of this clause. The document was utterly laughable. As the Minister subsequently confessed in Committee, it was full of inaccuracies. Several weeks have passed since then. Why is a draft document not available? When will it become available?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give a specific date. However, those issues will be included in the draft document. The right hon. Gentleman can then make his comments. Our dispute does not relate to the details of the draft document. Opposition Members wish to frustrate the possibility of tenants buying their own homes by denying them the right to a mortgage.

Mr. Barry Henderson: In Committee, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said that we were giving tenants too good a deal. He now claims that we are not giving

the tenant a good enough deal. Does not my hon. Friend conclude that on balance it is the right deal?

Mr. Rifkind: That is a reasonable conclusion. I accept that the Opposition wish to frustrate our policy. They wish to deny mortgages to as many tenants as possible. Their points would have some subtance if local authorities were expected to find huge amounts of cash for mortgages. However, local authorities will not have to find a single penny to finance the purchase of their property. Instead of paying rent, those who wish to buy their homes will pay a mortgage. If the mortgagor defaults on his payments, the local authority has a council house as security. In the event of a default in mortgage repayments, the local authority will be able to recover its council house. The local authority therefore has security. It will not have to fork out a single penny.
Local authority tenants will be able to exercise their rights under the law. Opposition Members would have been the first to complain if the Government had provided a right but had not provided the means for council tenants to take advantage of it I therefore cannot accept the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister confirm my point and let me know whether I am right? As the clause is drafted, is it not a fact that every applicant, regardless of income, will get an offer of a loan?

Mr. Rifkind: It is true that an applicant could not be refused a loan. However, the maximum to which he would be entitled would depend on his income. In practice, a tenant on a low income, or on supplementary benefit, would be entitled only to a very small amount. Unless mat applicant had other savings or an alternative source of income, he would be unlikely to be able to purchase the property. Although the right hon. Gentleman is technically correct, a maximum will apply to the multiplier on the loan. The public interest is therefore suitably protected.

Mr. Millan: It is not a question of whether I am technically right.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is right.

Mr. Millan: I wish that the Minister had said that instead of embroidering his speech with words that are not particularly relevant. He has said that regardless of income a tenant, even if he is on supplementary benefit, will get an offer of a loan. Is that right?

Mr. Rifkind: That is right. However, I am obliged to add the rider that that will not enable the applicant to purchase the house unless the loan is sufficient to cover the cost or he is in possession of savings to cover the remainder. Subject to those points, the right hon. Gentleman is correct.

Mr. James Dempsey: I have been in contact with the hon. Gentleman on behalf of Monklands district council. He knows that that council complains bitterly that, as a result of cuts in its housing allocations, it does not have any resources to lend. If the council goes ahead with the programme of modernisation to which it is committed, it will not be able to build houses or lend money to anyone, tenant or not, to buy any type of house.
I do not seek to frustrate the sale of houses. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is so, as I have corresponded with him on this subject. How can Monk-lands district council give loans to tenants to buy their houses when there is no money in the kitty? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will advise me.

Mr. Rifkind: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an answer that he will be delighted to hear. We have made clear to local authorities—in Scotland and elsewhere—that loans to council tenants need not come from existing housing allocations to local authorities. There is no ceiling on the amount of loan that a local authority can give to a tenant who wishes to purchase a council house.
A local authority which provides such a loan will not have to find any cash. There are no public expenditure implications. Monklands district council can happily grant as many loans as it wishes for that purpose—[Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will allow me to answer a question asked by one of their colleagues. Monklands district council can give as many mortgages as it wishes to council tenants wishing to puchase their homes. It will not have one

penny's effect on its housing revenue account or on its non-housing revenue account allocations.

Mr. Dempsey: Where will the money come from?

Mr. Rifkind: I have been trying to point out that local authorities will not have to find cash. The tenant is already paying rent. Instead of paying rent to one account, he will pay a mortgage repayment to another account. It is unnecessary for the local authority to find cash for that purpose.

Mr. Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether this peculiar loan—which does not involve the transference of cash—will increase M3?

Mr. Rifkind: The loans will not have public expenditure implications. Given the vast number of tenants who will exercise this right, the Government would have been concerned if the loans had done so. I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Millan: I give notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when we come to the appropriate point in the Amendment Paper I should like the House to divide on amendment No. 74. I hope that that will be noted.

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 7, line 16, leave out from ' the ' to ' for ' in line 18 and insert
'application of regulations made under section 5(3) of this Act to obtain a loan of the amount'.

No. 50, in page 7, line 20, leave out from beginning to second ' or'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 7, line 25, leave out from ' £100 ' to ' and ' in line 28.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments :
No. 52, in page 7, line 27, leave out ' 2 years ' and insert ' six months'.
Government amendment No. 53.
No. 54, in page 7, line 30, leave out ' 2 years ' and insert ' six months'.
Government amendment No. 55.
No. 56, in page 7, line 31, at end insert—
'8A. Subsection (8) of this section shall not apply where the dwelling-house is one of a


group on which the landlord has proposals for, or the houses are in the process of, improvements, alterations, or major structural repair.'.
Government amendment No. 59.

Mr. Rifkind: I wish to speak to all the Government amendments included in this series. No. 59 provides that the existence of a fixed price option shall not prevent an authority from recovering possession of the house, and when it does so the fixed price option is terminated. Without this amendment there would be no point in a landlord recovering possession of a house, subject to a fixed price option, because even if the new tenants were put in the tenants holding the option would retain their right to buy until the option had expired.
Government amendments Nos. 51 and 55 deal with the circumstances in which the £100 deposit required of a tenant shall be returned to him. Those circumstances include the tenant's death when his successors would be entitled to repayment of the amount, and the termination of the tenancy by virtue of the new subsection (10), when the fixed price option also terminates.

Amendment No. 51 affects the existing provisions and amendment No. 55 implements the effect that I have just described. Government amendment No. 53 is purely drafting, and I can go into that in detail if the House wishes me to do so. The remaining amendments in this category are Opposition amendments, and I shall reserve my comments until after they have been discussed.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On this matter we had a long session in Committee, and I do not propose to take too much time now, in view of the Minister's remarks in Committee, when he said :
In no way would the Government wish to limit or withdraw this right provided in the Bill. It applies only in limited circumstances."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 26 February 1980, c. 7541.
In the light of the Government's "no-compromise" attitude, I know that I would be wasting my time on drawing on my extensive eloquence. I do not share the view that every amendment that we table is an obstruction aimed at making life more difficult for the Government. Having read the report of the whole of the proceedings of this part of the Bill in Committee, and being as charitable

as I can, I still cannot find one reason for the Government's approach. I found good reasons, from the Minister's arguments, for disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who thought that this was a wicked plot to bind a future Government for two years, or with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) who thought that it was a ploy to enable people to take their income at the date of application in order to obtain beneficial terms as a result of the rise in house prices over the two-year period. I accept what the Minister said against these two arguments, but I really cannot find one point of substance to convince me that there is merit in his proposal.
7.45 pm
I do not think that there will be dramatic changes in people's incomes over a two-year period, unless they become worse off. I cannot see the logic in the proposal. Therefore, I suggest that the Government reduce this period to six months. That seems more realistic.

Amendment No. 56 raises a new principle. Because of the amount of money involved in modernisation work being done or to be done, the occupier of one of these houses should not attract the beneficial right to buy by putting down £100 for the great concession that will be given to him in two years' time.

Mr. Dewar: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) in his plea for substituting six months for two years. The two-year provision is a surprising piece of machinery. If someone applies for a loan and is refused because he has not met the minimum criteria on income, he has the right to put £100 down, and that will preserve his right to buy for two years at the price that existed when he paid the £100. This is a remarkable and enormous advantage for someone who is buying a council house over anyone else who is trying to become a home owner.
In Glasgow, house prices have increased violently over the last two years. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I am aware that in every sector of the housing market, whether it be the substantial west-end terraced house, which now commonly fetches well over £60,000


or a house at the bottom end of the market, where escalation is probably even faster, that trend has continued. The right to preserve the option to buy for two years would be very valuable, as it amounts to a two-year price freeze.
I wish to press the point made by my lion. Friend the Member for Provan. Presumably the Government believe that someone who unfortunately cannot meet the financial criteria at present will at some time in the two-year period be able to do so. However, it seems unlikely that circumstances will change so dramatically. Perhaps families will grow up and working children will appear in the house. Another interesting concession is that apparently the total income of the family is taken into account rather than that of the applicant alone. That kind of situation may influence the ability of the family to qualify during the two-year period, but that would be exceptional, and I believe that in most cases the six months' period would be much fairer and much more reasonable, given the fierce escalation in house prices in the West of Scotland and, indeed, in Scotland generally under the aegis of Conservative economic policies.
We now have the new Government amendment No. 55, which sets out the machinery for reclaiming the £100 if the option is not taken up. Will interest be payable on the money in that period? Under the remarkable financial policy of this Administration, interest rates are a matter of some importance. At the going rate of 21 per cent., clearly that £100 would be a valuable investment in its own right—it would grow to about £140 or £150 in two years. As we are giving away everything gift-wrapped to people who wish to exercise their rights under the Bill, I wonder whether we will go as far as paying interest on the £100 deposit.

Mr. Rifkind: There is certainly no statutory obligation on a local authority to pay interest. Should it wish to do so I do not think that it would necessarily be prohibited, but that is certainly not the Government's intention.
The first purpose of the Opposition amendment is to reduce the option period to six months. I accept that Labour Members would prefer that there was no option period at all, but if there is to be

one it must be meaningful if it is to be of any real benefit to prospective purchasers. It is not just a matter of a person's income increasing over the two-year period ; it may be a question of savings. Perhaps the person is able to accumulate a sufficient amount to enable him to pay part of the purchase price, thereby reducing the mortgage repayments to a figure that he can afford. A period of six months would have no real effect one way or the other and would mean that the option would rarely be of any benefit. For that reason, the two-year period is thought to be appropriate.
The second purpose of the amendment is to say that there should be no right to a fixed price option where the landlord has proposals for the improvement or the repair of the house and is actually carrying out the work. If an applicant wishes to exercise his right to an option there is no basic reason why, in its offer to sell, a local authority should not seek to impose conditions relating to repayment for any works done in the two-year period. If the tenant disputed that it would be a matter for the Lands Tribunal to resolve. If a local authority seriously contemplated improvements in that two-year period it would simply impose the conditions relating to the repayment of any costs incurred over that period and it would be for the applicant to consider whether that was acceptable, if the Lands Tribunal held that the conditions were reasonable. There is already a mechanism to cover that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that acceptable.

Mr. Millan: The option is merely a ramp. It is ludicrous, in view of the rate of inflation, to say that by paying £100 today a person can buy a house in two years' time at the same price. The mechanism should be removed. Unfortunately, the amendment that would have done that was not selected.
In the absence of an amendment to remove the monstrous provision, we should try to reduce the damage in the option by voting for amendment No. 54.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 53, in page 7, line 29, leave out from beginning to ' at ' in line 30 and insert
serve a notice of acceptance on the landlord '—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Amendment proposed : No. 54, in page 7, line 30, leave out ' 2 years ' and insert ' six months'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided : Ayes 211, Noes 264.

Division No. 357]
AYES
[7.50 pm


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Adams, Allen
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Ford, Ben
O'Halloran, Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foulkes, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Park, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parker, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pavitt, Laurie


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ginsburg, David
Pendry, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Graham, Ted
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Prescott, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, John (Islington C)
Race, Reg


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Radice, Giles


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Jo


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Robertson, George


Campbell, Ian
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cant, R. B.
Homewood, William
Rooker, J. W.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cartwright, John
Horam, John
Sandelson, Neville


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Sever, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sheerman, Barry


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Coleman, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Short, Mrs Renée


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cook, Robin F.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Silverman, Julius


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Snape, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kerr, Russell
Soley, Clive


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Kinnock, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Straw, Jack


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leadbitter, Ted
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Deakins, Eric
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Tilley, John


Dewar, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


Dixon, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Watkins, David


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William
Weetch, Ken


Dormand, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Douglas, Dick
McQuade, John
Welsh, Michael


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
White, Frank R.(Bury & Radcliffe)


Dubs, Alfred
Marks, Kenneth
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Whitlock, William


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Dunnett, Jack
Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Eastham, Ken
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Woolmer, Kenneth


English, Michael
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Wright, Shella


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Ewing, Harry Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Onenertaw) Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Fitch, Alan
Morton, George
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Fitt, Gerard
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Mr. James Hamilton.


Flannery, Martin
Newens, Stanley





NOES


Adley, Robert
Alexander, Richard
Amery, Rt Hon Julian


Aitken, Jonathan
Alton, David
Ancram, Michael




Arnold, Tom
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Neale, Gerrard


Aspinwall, Jack
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Needham, Richard


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Oorset)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Newton, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Normanton, Tom


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Bendall, Vivian
Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Cranley


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hannam, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Benyon, w. (Buckingham)
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Best, Keith
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hawksley, Warren
Parkinson, Cecil


Blackburn, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Parris, Mathew


Blaker, Peter
Heddle, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Henderson, Barry
Patten, John (Oxford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Pattle, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Pawsey, James


Bowden, Andrew
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pollock, Alexander


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Tom
Porter, George


Bright, Graham
Hordem, Peter
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brinton, Tim
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brittan, Leon
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Howells, Geraint
Ralson, Timothy


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rhodes James, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bulmer, Esmond
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Butcher, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Butler, Hon Adam
Kilfedder, James A.
Rossi, Hugh


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Kimball, Marcus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Channon, Paul
Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Chapman, Sydney
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Churchill, W. S.
Lawson, Nigel
Silvester Fred


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lee, John
Sims, Roger


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speller, Tony


Cockeram, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Colvin, Michael
Loveridge, John
Squire, Robin


Cope, John
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanley, John


Cormack, Patrick
McCrindle, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cerne, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
MacGregor, John
Stevens, Martin


Cranborne, Viscount
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Dickens, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McQuarrie, Albert
Tapsell, Peter


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Madel, David
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Durant, Tony
Major, John
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mariand, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Eggar, Timothy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Thompson, Donald


Eyre, Reginald
Mates, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Thornton, Malcolm


Fairgrleve, Russell
Mawby, Ray
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Faith, Mrs Shella
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trippier, David


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mellor, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Wakeham, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, lain (Merlden)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker, Bill (Perth & Perthshire)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Moate, Roger
Wall, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Molyneaux, James
Walters, Dennis


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Monro, Hector
Ward, John


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Montgomery, Fergus
Warren, Ken nth


Goodhew, Victor
Moore, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Srh)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Wheeler, John


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon Peter (City ol Chester)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Greenway, Harry
Mudd, David
Wickenden, Keith


Grieve, Percy
Myles, David
Wilkinson, John







Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Wolfson, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. David Waddington.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made : No. 55, in page 7, line 31, at end add—
'(8A) The payment of £100 mentioned in subsection (8) above shall be recoverable—


(a) by the tenant, when he purchases the dwelling-house in accordance with that subsection or, if he does not, at the expiry of the period of two years mentioned therein; or
(b) by the tenant, when the landlord recovers possession of the dwelling-house under subsection (10) below ;
(c) by his personal representatives, if he dies without purchasing the dwelling-house in accordance with that subsection.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 7, line 32, leave out from ' has ' to ' he ' in line 33 and insert
'made an application to purchase under subsection (1) above.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 58.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendments make it clear that a tenant who has taken out a fixed price option and has not exercised his right to purchase by the end of the two-year period is barred from submitting a new application under the right-to-buy provisions for 12 months. That was always intended, but a drafting error made the amendment necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 7, line 35, leave out from ' until ' to end of line 38 and insert
'the last date on which he would be entitled to serve a notice of acceptance in order to comply with subsection (6) above or with subsection (8) above'.

No. 59, in page 7, line 38, at end add—
'(10) The existence of a fixed price option under subsection (8) above shall not prevent the landlord from recovering possession of the property in any manner which may be lawful, and in that event the option shall be terminated.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 3

REFUSAL OF APPLICATIONS

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 8, line 4, leave out from beginning to ' it ' in line 5 and insert

'is of the opinion that information contained in the application is incorrect in a material respect.'.
This amendment provides that an inaccuracy on which a notice of refusal is based must be of material consequence to ensure that tenants are not refused the right to buy because of inconsequential errors in their application forms.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

CONDITIONS OF SALE

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 8, line 41, after ' tenant ', insert '
'or any of his successors in title'.
The amendment extends the prohibition on the imposition of pre-emption conditions to include pre-emption conditions falling on the original purchaser's successors in title. The amendment will be beneficial in two ways. In relation to houses which are not intended to be subject to pre-emption conditions, it might have been possible for a landlord to impose a pre-emption condition directly on to a successor. Clearly that would have been inappropriate and against the Bill's intentions.
In relation to houses which are intended to be able to be made subject to pre-emption conditions, the amendment makes it clear that authorities which have chosen to waive their right to pre-emption on the first occasion that a house is sold can, nevertheless, exercise that right should the house be resold a second time within the period. If a second owner wishes to sell a property, the local authority should be entitled to exercise the right of pre-emption.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 8, line 43, after ' of ', insert
'a dwelling house of one or two apartments or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendment :
Government amendment No. 63.
No. 64, in page 8, line 43, after ' been ', insert ' provided'.
No. 65, in page 9, line 2, leave out from ' person ' to end of line 3.

Mr. Robertson: There are two parts to the argument. The first relates to the small number of one- or two-apartment houses in the Scottish housing stock. The second relates to houses provided for disabled people. The Government have made a provisional decision not to exempt houses for the disabled from the right-to-buy provisions, although they have said that they will reconsider the matter. The danger is that the few houses for elderly and disabled people will be subject to the right-to-buy provisions and will disappear from local authority housing stock.
The only protection for specifically designed houses from the right-to-buy provisions is in this part of the Bill which allows for certain pre-emption rights to be retained by local authorities so that they can repurchase houses if they come on to the market.
In amendment No. 63 the Government seek to tighten the definition of houses covered by the pre-emption clause. We welcome the tightening of the definition, as far as it goes. However, it is not enough to reassure people who believe that potential problems will continue to arise because of the severe shortage of such specialist housing.
The problem is recognised even by this Government. They have made savage cuts in the housing support grant and the general house building programme in Scotland so that council house building will be reduced to pre-war levels, but local authorities are being exhorted by the Government to concentrate the money that they have—and that is precious little—on specialist interest housing, with an accent on the elderly and disabled.
Neither party can be particularly proud of Scotland's record in this respect. There is a sizeable gap in the provision made for such people. The totals were announced in a written answer on 4 February. A total of 2,794 local authority houses, 216 new town houses and 67 SSHA houses are designed or adapted for the physically disabled. That total does not go to the nub of the problem.
Houses that have been specifically designed are an expensive matter for any local authority looking seriously at the

problem. Any move by the Government that proves a deterrent to local authorities to build such houses would be a backward step and would exacerbate the problem. Amendment No. 62 is desgined to protect the smaller houses of which there is a disproportionately small stock in Scotland and which tend to be the houses required by the elderly. If there is any prospect that local authorities will start to lose even more of that small number of one, or two-apartment houses, the difficulties experienced are likely to continue to afflict succeeding Governments.
A loophole in the Bill is that people other than sitting tenants can benefit from the right to buy, probably not immediately, but within the foreseeable future. This means that small units, adequate and appropriate for the elderly, will disappear from local authority housing stock.
Our amendments are designed to strengthen the hand of local authorities in providing for what even the Government consider to be a major housing priority. I hope that the Government will recognise the force of the arguments made by Shelter and by local authorities and will take on board our amendments which would strengthen substantially the provisions in the Bill and in amendment No. 62.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I express a wholehearted welcome for the amendment put down by the Labour Opposition. The case was presented in reasonable terms by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). The amendment should commend itself to the Government. In most areas, with the age of the population rising, there is a tremendous demand for smaller houses for old people. If those houses are bought by sons and daughters, they will be taken out of circulation for older people.
I could have extended my argument to include ground floor houses. That issue, however, is not before the House. In the current situation, the one or two apartment houses will not be replaced because the Government are not making finance available. The housing programme has come to a crashing halt. It will be difficult for these houses to be taken out of circulation if there is no prospect that local authorities can replace them.

Mr. Cook: I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). I support warmly my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in the amendment that he moved. This debate would not be necessary if the Government had framed their legislation to allow discretion to housing authorities in the application of the sale of council houses. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) dissents. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps share his views with the House. This matter affects the elderly section of the population. One might have expected that at least one Government Back Bencher would let hon. Members know whether he shares the views of the Opposition on the housing conditions of the elderly.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we spent some time in Committee discussing the Bill. I made my views clear at that time.

Mr. Cook: The procedure of the House provides for a Bill, as reported by a Committee, to be tested and examined by the whole House on Report. I can perhaps exempt the hon. Gentleman from giving his views again. That still leaves 332 Conservative Members. I should have thought that at least one would have wished to give his views about the housing conditions of old people.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My hon. Friend will have noted that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) was one of the few with a legitimate excuse. He was a member of another Committee at the time. Even so, hardly a word was heard from him in Committee.

Mr. Cook: I believe that this matter has been adequately explored. If local authorities were given discretion about which houses to sell and not to sell, I do not think that more than a handful of them would willingly decide to sell one-or two-apartment dwellings that are suitable for the elderly. Virtually no housing authority in Scotland has enough of these dwellings. At the time I last inquired, the number of applicants in the Edinburgh district council area, for one- or two-apartment houses, as a proportion of the waiting list, was double the number

of one- or two-apartment dwellings as a proportion of the housing stock. That is typical of the position throughout Scotland.
In general, elderly applicants wait twice as long as other applicants because it is more difficult for them to obtain the accommodation that they seek. Ironically, they are the people who have less time to wait. By the time the offer comes round they may no longer be able to take advantage of it. That is one reason why few housing authorities would willingly sell off this stock.
There is another reason. If there is an area where speculation is likely to occur as a result of the Bill, it is among houses for the elderly. That is the sector where one might expect to realise an investment in the near future as the tenant dies and the house becomes vacant It is not readily obvious why someone who is now retired, living in a house suitable for an elderly person but not necessarily adapted for an elderly person, should choose, at that moment in life, to become an owner-occupier other than for the speculative value when that house becomes available to his descendants or whoever may have advanced the loan with which the house is purchased.
My hon. Friend's moderate amendment would not deny such a tenant the right and ability to become an owner-occupier for the rest of his term, but it would give the district council a preemption right that would enable it to recoup the house when it came back on the market. That would discourage speculation. There would be no point in speculating when it was known that the local authority might exercise preemption and recoup the house. Secondly, even more important, it would retain the house in a housing stock where it was desperately needed.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his first argument may not be correct? If the house is sold and a pre-emption right applied, the risk of speculation will not be curbed because the enhanced value will have to be repaid.

Mr. Cook: Speculation would not necessarily be eliminated, but the fact that a local authority was in a position to exercise a pre-emption right would, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, curb


it to some extent. We are dealing with a type of house of which there are not enough. There will plainly not be enough built in future years. We discussed yesterday the effect of the cutback in capital allocation. Even to keep abreast in the growth of the number of elderly will strain the capital allocation that remains. In those circumstances, it is plain folly to sell off houses without taking the modest step of providing a pre-emption clause.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I should like to add a few sentences. Something that is new since this matter was discussed in Committee is the fact that the report on the provision of services for the elderly has been issued. Even in the foreword to that report the Secretary of State for Scotland had the grace to admit that he could not accept its recommendations and that there was no obligation on him to accept them. That merely indicates to me that the Government are totally incapable of allowing any flexibility with regard to the type of housing for the elderly, even though we warned them that in cerain areas there could be a demand from sections of the community other than the elderly.
We are winning the arguments, yet there has not been a concession of any substance. We have bent over backwards to stress that this is not another case of obstructing the legislation which the Government are determined to push through. It is not a case of reducing the number of people who will be eligible. This type of housing accommodation is in short supply. Yet in spite of all the arguments, the Government and the Minister are going ahead pigheadedly with their ideological crusade to sell everything that they can. It is tragic that we have not had more time tonight—I do not blame anyone, because there are too many amendments, to which we have contributed—to discuss the problems of housing for the elderly.

Mr. Rifkind: I must first refute the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). The Government have acknowledged the problems of the elderly. It is for that very reason that all sheltered housing, which is the matter of greatest interest to the elderly, is excluded from the right to buy.

Were the Government being pigheaded, dogmatic or ideological, there is no reason why they should automatically have chosen to exclude sheltered housing. They have done so because they recognise its importance.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that this problem would have been removed if only the Government had allowed discretion to the local authorities in terms of the houses that they sell. He must appreciate that any possibility of the Government's being able to move in that direction was removed by the attitude of the Labour Party in the local authorities that it controls. For example, how many houses are at present being sold in Glasgow, Dundee or Aberdeen at the discretion of the local authorities? Not one—thus making clear that only when Parliament has so decreed will a house in any of those local authority areas that are under Labour control be sold. Therefore, we must accept the unfortunate reality that the provision of general discretion to local authorities would have meant that in Labour-controlled authorities not one house would have been sold in the future, as has been the case in the past.

Mr. Cook: The Minister is well aware that the Bill was drafted and published at a time when only five authorities in the whole of Scotland were under Labour control. If the Government produce a Bill that is so intransigent, and that leaves so little room for flexibility at a local level, they cannot complain if those who subsequently win elections and are in opposition to the Bill adopt an equally intransigent position.

Mr. Rifkind: But the Labour Party's views have not changed since the Bill was published. One can look with a great deal of curiousity but with very little satisfaction at the attitude of Labour controlled authorities in Scotland and elsewhere during the last 20 years. Hardly one Labour authority has sold a house, except when it has been forced upon it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman cannot put forward that proposition.

Amendment No. 62 does not specifically refer to the elderly, but rather to one- or two-apartment houses. Here there is an inconsistency in the Opposition's approach. In Committee they spent half their time arguing that the elderly


would never take advantage of these provisions, that they would never wish to buy their homes, and that it would be pointless their wishing to do so, yet they are now suggesting that all these houses will be sold as soon as the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

The only proposition that has been put forward today is based on the pure speculation that although elderly people themselves would have no interest in buying the house, and although they probably would not have the means to do so, they have thousands of relatives in Scotland who are waiting for the moment to come when they will be able to make a gift to their elderly relatives in order that they can purchase their property. As a pure theoretical proposition, I cannot prove that that will not happen, but, equally, Opposition Members have not produced one iota of evidence to suggest that it will. But that is the only basis on which they have put forward their argument.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of extending his argument too far? He is talking about house sales and the extent to which houses will be sold. Does not he accept that houses that are occupied by the elderly will be held for a shorter period, because of the facts of life and turnover, and that such houses will normally come into circulation more frequently? If there is a shortage of those houses, surely there should be a pre-emption that would allow a local authority that had a superfluity of elderly tenants to repurchase the house and to pay the price as determined by the district valuer, in order to meet demand?

Mr. Rifkind: But even if the person who has bought the house dies, and the house again becomes available, it will be an attraction only to those who need one-or two-apartment accommodation. The categories of the population that would benefit from that type of housing are severely limited. Again, I should stress that there is no question of housing being lost to the community. The housing still exists and is available for those who need one- or two-apartment accommodation. If substantial numbers of elderly people in such accommodation wish to exercise their right to buy,

it seems wrong that they should be penalised compared with the rest of the population. On the other hand—this is the argument normally put forward by Labour Members—if hardly anyone in that category wishes to exercise that right, it is wrong to suggest that such houses would be sold in any numbers.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister has just said that it would be wrong for these people to be penalised. In what way are they being penalised? As I understand it, they are allowed to purchase houses. However, if the amendment is accepted they will be allowed to purchase the houses subject to a pre-emption clause. The aim of that is to retain the house for the benefit of the community. However, that would still allow the value of the house, or any added value as determined by the district valuer, to go to the tenant or his successor.

Mr. Rifkind: It is right and proper that if an elderly person wishes to exercise the same right as other members of the community he should derive the same benefits. A house that has a pre-emption clause tied to it will clearly not be as attractive to a potential purchaser—[HON. MEMBERS : "Why?"]—because the market value will be significantly affected. That is my point of view, but I accept that Opposition Members may take a different view.

Mr. Millan: It is not a question of what we accept ; it is a question of what is in the Bill. As I understand it, the Minister was at great pains in Committee to make it absolutely clear that a preemption right would in no way affect the value that the person concerned would obtain. Is he saying that the Bill does not provide that?

Mr. Rifkind: I am saying that we see no reason why elderly persons who might wish to purchase such property should be in a different position from that of the rest of the community. I take it that Opposition Members do not accept that viewpoint.

Mr. Cook: For 20 sittings in Committee and for 48 hours on the Floor of the House the hon. Gentleman has insisted that when houses are bought they will not disappear, and that the tenant will


sit there for 20 or 30 years and not disappear. He says, therefore, that the question of access to the house through re-letting will not arise. He must apply the logic of that position—he has repeated it tediously to the House—to the argument that he is advancing.
If the tenant does not move on—we are dealing with elderly tenants, who are not likely to move out of the houses that they have purchased until they die—he has the full enjoyment of that house, as an owner-occupier, under my hon. Friend's amendment. What does not exist is the right for that house to be put on the market after he is dead and in the ground. Under the pre-emption rights the local authority could then step in. During the time that he occupies the house he enjoys full rights as owner-occupier. It is not fair to say that such a person would be in any way disadvantaged by this amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendment does not refer solely to elderly people ; it refers to a certain class of accommodation. I accept that it is largely occupied by elderly people—though not exclusively so—but there are many single people whom local authorities can occasionally accommodate, and there are other categories also within the group. I have explained the position of the Government, but I do not expect hon. Gentlemen to agree with it.
Government amendment No. 63 seeks to clarify special needs housing where major adaptations have been made for the elderly or the disabled. The Government have made it clear that where housing has been specifically adapted to the needs of the disabled or elderly that the pre-emption right should apply. Accordingly, I commend Government amendment No. 63.

Mr. George Robertson: After all the time that we have spent debating the issue, and bearing in mind all the views that have been expressed to him, the Minister must be either naive or blind-if he continues to believe that this provision will not affect the housing stock available for the elderly. There may be a loophole here that could provide a capital gain for somebody but there are plenty of people on the Conservative Back Benches—and some on the Front Benches as well—who could tell of simi-

lar loopholes in every Finance Bill that comes before this House. It is naive for anyone to put forward the argument that this loophole will not be used when there is a clear capital advantage available to some people who will exploit the shortage of this kind of accommodation.
It is worth putting on record that 52 per cent. of Scottish households consist of one or two people, and that most of those households comprise elderly people. Yet only 14 per cent. of Scotland's public housing stock is suitable for the elderly. Any diminution of the housing stock available for the elderly will exacerbate a problem that even this Government recognise is severe in Scotland.
We do not wish to take up the time of the House by dividing on this issue, important though it is. We are willing to allow the Government further time to reflect on the obvious and serious problem being experienced by local authorities throughout Scotland. I have no doubt that in another place our hon. Friends will table amendments that will raise this subject again.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 8, line 43, after ' which ', insert
'has facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling house and which'.

No. 68, in page 9, line 15, after ' instrument ', insert
'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 5

LOANS

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 9, line 45, after ' loan ', insert
'of an amount not exceeding the price fixed under 1(4) of this Act'.
This amendment limits the rights of a tenant exercising the right to buy to apply for a mortgage from the housing authority by providing that he may not apply for a loan for a greater sum than the selling price of that house. This is a sensible amendment which clarifies the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 234, in page 10, line 3, after ' landlord ' insert ' or other body'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Amendment proposed : No. 74, in page 10, line 19, after 'applicant' insert—
'(iv) such other information as may be prescribed to allow the landlord or other

body to consider whether the applicant is a suitable person to receive a loan under this section'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided : Ayes 207, Noes 270.

Division No. 358]
AYES
[8.35 pm


Abse, Leo
Ford, Ben
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Adams, Allen
Forrester, John
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek
O'Halloran, Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Palmer, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
George, Bruce
Park, George


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Haywood)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parker, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David
Parry, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Graham, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pendry, Tom


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, John (Islington C)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Prescott, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Hardy, Peter
Race, Reg


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersiey, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Campbell, Ian
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Robertson, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cant, R. B.
Homewood, William
Rooker, J. W.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooley, Frank
Rose, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cartwright, John
Horam, John
Sandelson, Neville


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Sever, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sheerman, Barry


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Janner, Hon Greville
Short, Mrs Renée


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cook, Robin F.
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Snape, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Straw, Jack


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
Leadbitter, Ted
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Deakins, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dewar, Donald
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh
Tilley, John


Dobson, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


Dormand, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Watkins, David


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William
Weetch, Ken


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maclenrtan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Dubs, Alfred
Magee, Bryan
Welsh, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R.(Bury a Radclitfe)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Dunnett, Jack
Masons Rt Hon Roy
Whitlock, William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


English, Michael
Miller, Dr M S (East Kilbride)
Winnick, David


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Woodall, Alec


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wright, Shella


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Chartes (Openshaw)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Fitch, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)



Fitt, Gerard
Morton, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Flannery, Martin
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley
Mr. James Hamilton.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mills, lain (Mariden)


Aitken, Jonathan
Fry, Peter
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Alexander, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miscampbell, Norman


Alton, David
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger


Ancram, Michael
Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector


Arnold, Tom
Gower, Sir Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Aspinwall, Jack
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mudd, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Murphy, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grist, Ian
Myles, David


Beith, A. J.
Grylls, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Bell, Sir Ronald
Gummer, John Selwyn
Needham, Richard


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Nelson, Anthony


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hannam, John
Normanton, Tom


Best, Keith
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, Rt Hon John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs-Davison, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Blackburn, John
Hawksley, Warren
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Blaker, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heddle, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Henderson, Barry
Parkinson, Cecil


Bowden, Andrew
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parris, Matthew


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Bright, Graham
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Brinton, Tim
Hooson, Tom
Partie, Geoffrey


Britan, Leon
Hordern, Peter
Pawsey, James


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, George


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Howells, Geraint
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby
Ralson, Timothy


Bulmer, Esmond
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Burden, F. A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Butcher, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rerrton, Tim


Butler, Hon Adam
Kilfedder, James A.
Rhodes James, Robert


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Ridsdale, Julian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rifkind, Malcolm


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lamont, Norman
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Channon, Paul
Lang, Ian
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Chapman, Sydney
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)
Lee, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cockeram, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Colvin, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Cope, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldrldge-Br'hills)


Cormack, Patrick
Loveridge, John
Silvester Fred


Corrie, John
Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


Costain, A. P.
McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
MacGregor, John
Speller, Tony


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Dorrell, Stephen
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Squire, Robin


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stanley, John


Durant, Tony
McQuade, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dykes, Hugh
McQuarrie, Albert
Steen, Anthony


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Madel, David
Stevens, Martin


Eggar, Timothy
Major, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Emery, Peter
Marland, Paul
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Eyre, Reginald
Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Peter


Fairgrleve, Russell
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Faith, Mrs Shella
Mates, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Fair, John
Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Donald


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Maxwell-Hysiop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mellor, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trippier, David


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Trotter, Neville







Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Ward, John
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Viggers, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William



Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Whitney, Raymond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Wall, Patrick
Wickenden, Keith
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Waller, Gary
Wilkinson, John
Mr. Darid Waddington.


Walters, Dennis

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made : No. 76, in page 10, line 29, after ' inquiry ', insert—
'(which shall include reasonable opportunity for the applicant to amend his application)'.

No. 77, in page 10, line 30, leave out from ' correct ' to the end of line 35.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 10, line 39, at end add—
'(3A) An order made under subsection (3) above shall not come into effect unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendment No. 86.

Mr. Millan: The effect of the amendment would be to provide that the orders to be made under clause 5 (3) would be made by statutory instrument. I understand that the Government have accepted that proposition and that their amendment No. 86 relates to the statutory instruments that will be made under subsections (3) and (6).

Mr. Rifkind: In order to save having to make a formal speech, perhaps I could point out now that the only difference between the right hon. Gentleman's amendment and the Government amendment is that we propose that the negative procedure should be used, whereas the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the affirmative procedure should apply. Otherwise, our proposals are similar.

Mr. Millan: I shall not look a gift horse in the mouth. At least the Government amendment provides for a parliamentary procedure, which is what I am interested in. In the light of the Minister's intervention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 81, in page 10, line 44, leave out from ' that ' to end of line 45 and insert
'information contained in the loan application is incorrect in a material respect.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 11, line 22, leave

out from ' loan ' to end of line 24 and insert
'in accordance with subsections (3) and (6) above'.
This is a drafting amendment which does not affect the policy in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 11, line 29, at end add—
'(9) A statutory instrument made under subsection (3) and (6) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 6

RECOVERY OF DISCOUNT ON EARLYRE-SALE

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 11, line 33 after ' dwelling-house ', insert
'(otherwise than under the will of the owner or on his intestacy or as a result of an order for compulsory purchase)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendment No. 89 and amendment No. 90, in page 11, line 37 at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) above applies to the disposal of part of a dwelling-house except in a case where it is a disposal by one of the parties to the original sale to one of the other parties.'.

Mr. Rifkind: The effect of the Government's amendments is to provide a clear definition of the term "disposal" as used in the Bill in relation to the circumstances in which a proportion of the discount would fall to be repaid.

Amendment No. 87 makes clear that, as was always intended, the discount repayment obligation will not apply when a house passes by inheritance. It is fair and proper that that should be so.

Amendment No. 89 makes clear that a disposal of part of a house will trigger off the discount repayment obligation. That clarification is intended to close a potential loophole that would have allowed a purchaser to evade the obligation to repay a discount by the simple device of selling the house less a small fraction of the property originally sold to him—for example, a small part of the garden or garage.

However, it is not intended that the discount repayment obligation should apply where the position is reversed and


the purchaser wishes to sell a relatively small part of the original property—for example, part of the garden, if it were to be sold to a local authority, or a garage being sold to someone else.

The clause is deliberately drafted in such a way that if the owner of the house is, in effect, to remain the resident of that house and is simply selling a small part of it, there should be no discount repayment. If, however, the position is the other way round, it is only right and proper that discount should be repaid.

Mr. Millan: I have no comments to make on amendment No. 87, but I am not completely happy about amendment No. 89. Amendment No. 90 is in rather different terms. The point of amendment No. 89 with regard to paragraph (a) is perfectly valid. Obviously, if there is, as it were, a redistribution of the house among the parties originally concerned, I would accept that that is not a disposal in any proper sense of the term and, therefore, there should be no question of the recovery of the discount. But paragraph (b) is rather a different proposition, because then one has the disposal of part of the house but with the person concerned continuing to stay in the house.
I gather from what the Minister has just said that the part in which the owner remains could not be just a garden shed or something like that, and I would accept that. But I am not sure why, in those circumstances—for example, where the house was divided, as could conceivably happen—there should not be at least the repayment of part of the discount proportionate to the part of the house that was sold, as distinct from the part of the house that was maintained by the person concerned.
The Minister will see that our amendment No. 90 picks up exactly the wording of his amendment No. 89 in relation to paragraph (a) but omits paragraph (b). Although I do not object in principle to what the Government are doing here, there could be cases in which it would be perfectly legitimate to recover discount in circumstances that would be precluded by the terms of amendment No. 89.

Mr. Rifkind: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. My response is that, because we are concerned here simply

with council houses, there are very few council houses which could be subdivided in such a manner as to provide two principal residences for the two succeeding occupiers. But even if there were a small number of such cases, and the house were such as to be capable of subdivision in this way, I do not think that we should wish to create any disincentive to the efficient use of large property.
The abuse that we were anxious to avoid—I know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with this—would be where a person, by simply retaining a garage but selling the rest of the house, could claim that, because he had not disposed of all of the property, he should not have to repay discount. The reverse would be equally unfair. If he were continuing to live in the house but simply selling off a garage, it would be wrong that he should not have to repay the whole discount.
It is unlikely that we could find legislative wording that would more appropriately meet our mutual objective. I think that the circumstances of a subdivision with two principal homes resulting from it are very unlikely to be found in the case of council houses. Most council houses are not of a size that would make this a real problem. I think that our objectives are identical. We feel that the wording is the closest that we are likely to get to meeting the problem.

Mr. McQuarrie: Will the Minister clarify the point about the local authority houses? There are cases where, because of the size of a family, two local authority houses are made into one. Once the family members left the principal home that had been theirs and the house was then converted into two smaller houses, would the person who remained in the principal home be able to gain the benefit, or would there have to be a repayment of part of the deposit?

Mr. Rifkind: The obligation to repay the discount expires after a relatively short period. We are dealing with only a small number of subdivisions in the first few years after large families have chosen to purchase houses. If a single dwelling house is divided, there will be no obligation to repay the discount as long as the person selling it remains in


it in the sense that it is his principal or only home.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 88 in page 11, line 34, leave out from first ' of ' to ' shall ' in line 35 and insert
'service of a notice of acceptance by the tenant under section 2(6) of this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 91.

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments relate to a change in the starting date for which the five-year period of the obligation to repay a share of discount in the event of resale is to be counted. At present the starting date is the date of conveyance of the property in question. The effect of the amendment is to change that to the date on which the tenant serves notice of acceptance in response to his landlord's offer to sell. As the Bill provides that the service by the tenant of a notice of acceptance constitutes a binding contract, it is logical that that should be the date from which the provision provisions flow.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 11, line 37, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) above applies to the disposal of part of a dwelling-house except in a case where—


(a) it is a disposal by one of the parties to the original sale to one of the other parties ; or
(b) the remainder of the dwelling-house continues to be the only or principal home of the person disposing of the part.'.

No. 91, in page 11, line 40, leave out ' conveyance ' and insert ' service of notice'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 11, line 46, at end add—
'(4) Where a landlord secures an obligation to repay a proportion of the discount under subsection (1) above the security shall, nothwith-standing section 13 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970, have priority immediately after—


(a) a standard security granted in security of a loan for the purchase of the dwelling-house and any interest present or future due thereon (including any such interest which has accrued or may accrue, and any expenses or outlays (including interest thereon) which may be, or may have been, reasonably in-

curred in the exercise of any power conferred on the lender by the deed expressing the security ; and
(b) if the landlord consents, a standard security over the dwelling-house granted in security of any further loan, and in relation thereto any such interest, expenses or outlays as aforesaid.

(5) The liability to repay a proportion of discount under this section shall not be imposed as a real burden in a disposition of any interest in the dwelling-house.'.
The amendment meets a point of practical concern to building societies about the rival calls on the proceeds of a house resold within five years, stemming from the repayment of a loan to a building society and the repayment of a proportion of discount to the former landlord.
The main point of the amendment is to provide that a building society or other lender shall have first claim on the money, which is the effect of the new subsection. The vast majority of local authorities have experienced no problem with the existing general consent. One or two authorities have felt it necessary to make the payment of discount the first charge on the property. That has led to building societies being unwilling to make any provision themselves.
It seems sensible that the normal practice for the vast majority of local authorities should be regularised. It is in the interests of local authorities that building societies should not be discouraged from participating.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO SELL HOUSES

Mr. John Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 13, line 6, at end insert—
'(i) (a) it is in good repair and suitable for occupation ; or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 95, in page 13, line 9, at end insert
'although it is in good repair and suitable for occupation'.

Mr. Maxton: I am aware that in the Tea Rooms and Dining Rooms the natives are getting restless. Therefore. I shall keep my remarks reasonably short. I shall speak long enough to enable the annunciator operators to change the in-


that appears on the screens. According to the annunciator, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has been speaking for the past 10 minutes. I shall speak long enough for my name to appear around the House.
The purpose of the amendment——

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: The annunciator has noted what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has said. The hon. Gentleman is all right now and he may resume his seat.

Mr. Maxton: The amendment relates to the discretionary sale of council houses rather than the mandatory sale that we have been discussing so far. The clause allows district councils to sell property that is unoccupied if certain conditions are met. I am proposing that one further condition should be set—namely, that before a district council may sell an unoccupied property it shall be in good repair and suitable for occupation. That strikes me as being a reasonable requirement. It does not go to the heart of the Bill or act against the principle of the sale of council houses.
A district council as a public body has an obligation to ensure that when it sells a property, especially if it is selling it to someone who is to take up occupation in it, it should be in a state that is suitable for that person to move into. That does not mean that it should be in good decorative order, but it means that there should be no basic faults in the building and that it is suitable for a person to move into, and, perhaps, to alter according to his taste.
9 pm
In Committee, the Minister made some remarkable statements. He suggested that young couples would grab at the opportunity of buying a property that had been standing empty. Such properties have to remain empty for at least three months and have to be on restricted offer for that period. I have reservations that young people will be desperate to grab at such properties, even at low prices. The rents on those properties are not high, and if young couples are not prepared to rent, I do not understand why they would grab at the opportunity to buy. However, it is remarkable that the Minister should ex-

pect a public body to sell a property that is not suitable for the purpose for which that building was originally designed. That is what the Minister suggested. I wonder whether he would suggest that car dealers should be able to sell cars that are not in a suitable condition to be put on the road. That is an analogy that could be made.
We should not merely be concerned about the condition of the single dwelling-house. A large proportion of the buildings in Glasgow are tenemental or multistorey blocks, and perhaps the overall structure of the building is not suitable. A young couple who buy a flat or house at a knock-down price may be taking on a house for which they will be faced with enormous repair bills because the local authority has not ensured that the property is in good repair at the time that it was sold.

Mr. O'Neill: I am conscious that this would appear to be the application of enterprise zones to the housing market. Properties that cannot be got rid of by any other means will be hawked around among unsuspecting house purchasers. I imagine that those houses will be in areas that are not particularly attractive, and that this will simply be a means of getting rid of the property.
The idea behind the sale of council houses was to enable those local authorities which did not take their responsibilities seriously to abdicate that responsibility by selling the property to unsuspecting tenants. In this instance, it is more extreme. It is simply a matter of getting rid of houses in areas of decay and dereliction for a variety of reasons—and certainly as a result of the inability of the local authorities to face up to their responsibilities as landlords. Local authorities would be more socially responsible if they looked at the possibility of improving the environment of the area. It is clear that the type of houses that they cannot sell are invariably in the areas where people do not want to live. I believe that some radical measures should be taken.
Labour Members would assume that radical measures would involve continuance in ownership, investment in the area, and improvement in the general condition of the neighbourhood. This measure gives local authorities an


opportunity to abdicate their responsibilities and to turn their backs on the other parts of the neighbourhood. In the larger conurbations, such as Pilton and Drumchapel, there are some pockets of very good housing where people take a great deal of care and pride in the locality.
However, around them one finds that there is nothing but dereliction and decay, especially, I imagine, in areas such as Edinburgh, where the Tory-controlled local authority is always looking for opportunities to get off the hook. It has been doing that in recent months with Martello Court, in relation to which it has anticipated the legislation and has sold a multi-storey block which stands as a monument to bad housing management. The authority put the wrong kind of tenants into the wrong kind of property, and it allowed the whole thing to crumble. In that instance a responsible and sensible authority could have made a lot more of what was at one stage a very attractive multi-storey block.
In these instances, I would imagine that all that we shall see from the legislation is yet another opportunity to let Tory authorities off the hook and to allow them not to meet their responsibilities as good landlords, good city fathers and good local authorities, able to improve the environment and the social fabric of the areas for which they are responsible.

Mr. McQuarrie: Rubbish.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: In theory, we should be supporting the principle in the amendment, because it gives a discretion to the local authority and lays down certain conditions. Therefore, I am somewhat ambivalent in my approach. My hon. Friends would not disagree with me that the amendments are not really the important things. They are a way of trying to draw attention to something that we are doing in this legislation. All that I ask the Minister is whether there is still a requirement on an authority that wants to demolish houses to seek the Secretary of State's consent.
I appreciate the concern that there will be a temptation wherever possible to get shot of a problem. I do not think that any of us has the answer to this matter. Therefore, I am not blaming the

Government. However, in some of the problem areas—the Minister was in one of them in my constituency on Friday, so at least he will recognise that I know what I am talking about—the temptation is to pull down houses because they are too big a problem for the authority. In some cases authorities are selling them off as a package deal. I do not object to that as an experiment. What I am apprehensive about is that in giving this discretion to the authority—which I normally would welcome—the authority may be tempted to take the easy way out because it is not facing up to what has created the problem initially.
I do not think that there is anything between the Minister and myself on this matter. Therefore, what I am asking is whether there is any safeguard, by way of monitoring, to see how this provision operates in case there is cause to remind authorities of their wider obligations.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) is correct when he says that local authorities require the Secretary of State's permission to abolish council houses. There is nothing in the Bill that will remove tht obligation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) used the example of the motor car salesman selling a defective car. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a motor car salesman selling a defective car as long as he does not conceal the fact that it is defective and that the price reflects the quality of the article that he is selling. That is very much on all fours with the situation with which we are dealing.
Before Opposition Members get too upset about this aspect of the matter, I think that they should reflect on what was said by the hon. Member for Provan and what Labour-controlled authorities are saying. I visited Glasgow district council last Friday. One of the points that the council put to me was that it was anxious to encourage homesteading among young people and to offer for sale to young people properties in a very poor condition, which it could not find tenants to occupy but which a young person with access to an improvement grant might be only too happy to take over.
There is no obligation on anyone to purchase such a property. There would


be no question of people not knowing the condition of the property. The price that they will pay for it will reflect that condition. Therefore, this seems a very sensible and reasonable attitude on the part of local authorities.
From experience in some parts of the United Kingdom, particularly London, we know that homesteading is a very attractive option, particularly for young married couples who cannot afford to purchase a house and who may have little priority for the allocation of a council house. It is, therefore, a discretionary matter. Local authorities cannot offer any house for sale. The house must be difficult to let according to the criteria in the clause.
Young people, or any group of people, may wish to buy property that is in poor condition and improve it, knowing that they will benefit from the work that they do. That occurs in the private sector and in many of our city centres. If local authorities have houses that are in poor condition and do not have the resources or wish to modernise them, it is right that they should be offered for sale.
In Glasgow there is an overall surplus of certain types of accommodation. It is right that local authorities should have the means to do whatever possible to find people to occupy houses that would otherwise lie derelict and vandalised. Those houses are of no benefit to the community.

Mr. Maxton: I had expected that answer. It was similar to the answer that the Minister gave to a debate in Committee. It is equally disappointing. Public bodies have a greater responsibility—perhaps they should not have—than private bodies in similar circumstances. Most of the houses will be in a state of disrepair, because they are in areas of general decline. I doubt whether local authorities will be able to sell those houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) pointed out that it might be possible to sell those houses on a large scale for demolition and redevelopment. However, if an individual were to buy such a property he would not only buy a property in a bad state of repair but—in a sense—buy an area of general decline.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I do not wish to be at odds with my hon. Friend. The amendment refers to property
in good repair and suitable for occupation.

In my constituency hundreds of houses are being pulled down, although they are in good repair and are fit for occupation. That is part of the problem.

Mr. Maxton: I accept that that is part of the problem. The exact wording of the amendment may not be suitable for dealing with the problem as a whole. Perhaps we shall have to ask our friends elsewhere to look at the wording. However, if local authorities are allowed to sell unoccupied houses, in a bad state of repair, to individuals, some people will be sold a pup. They will not see a return on their money. As I have some reservations about its wording, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 13, line 15 after ' 25 ', insert ' (4)'.
I was tempted to come to the Dispatch Box and to say that I was moving the amendment because the Minister had told me to do so in Committee. I was further tempted to quote the Minister's words in Committee. He said :
If the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about his point, he may like to table an amendment for a further stage."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 4 March 1980 ; c. 917.]
I was tempted to add that if the Minister would not accept my amendment he should make clear why he sought to renege on that commitment. I have resisted that temptation.
There was a slight textual error in the amendment submitted to the Table Office. I exonerate the Table Office from any blame, apart from the fact that the amendment was selected. The amendment should relate to clause 25(6). In its present form it makes little or no sense. It must have baffled a number of those who supply notes to the Minister. As there is no immediate technical means of rectifying it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

SECURE TENANCIES

Amendments made:

No. 97, in page 14, line 6, leave out ' section ' and insert
'sections (special provision for housing associations) and'.

No. 256, in page 14, line 38 after ' (4) ', insert ' (a)'.

No. 257, in page 14, line 39, at end add—
'(b) Where the tenancy of a dwelling-house is excluded from being a secure tenancy by reason only of the operation of paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 1, sections 15, 16 and 20 to 24 of this Act shall nevertheless apply to that tenancy as if it were a secure tenancy.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 15, line 2, leave out from ' dwelling house ' to ' the ' in line 5 and insert :
'of which the landlord is a body mentioned in subsection (2) above, while the dwelling-house which he normally occupies is not available for occupation,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 110.

Mr. Rifkind: The effect of these amendments is to extend the special provisions in the Bill which deal with the circumstances of tenants who are decanted as a result of works to their homes. In Committee these provisions were extended to tenants who were decanted because of disasters and emergencies. These amendments propose that the provision should be extended to all tenants who are decanted for whatever reason. It seems unnecessary to specify a particular circumstance. If the tenant has been decanted, presumably there were reasonable grounds for this action and it seems appropriate that the provision should apply to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

SECURITY OF TENURE

Amendments made :

No. 108, in page 15, line 21, leave out from ' while ' to ' the tenant ' in line 22 and insert :
'the dwelling-house which the tenant under a secure tenancy normally occupies is not available for occupation,'.

No. 109, in page 15, line 23, after ' dwelling-house ', insert :
'of which the landlord is a body mentioned in section 10(2) of this Act.'.

No. 110, in page 15, line 29, leave out ' the work is completed ' and insert :
'the dwelling-house which he normally occupies is available for occupation'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 12

SUCCESSION TO SECURE TENANCY

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in page 16, line 16, after ' agreement ', insert :
'within four weeks of the death of the tenant'.
This amendment stipulates the time limit within which agreement of succession to a tenancy must be obtained with the potential successors when there is more than one person with an equal right to that succession. The period provided is four weeks, after which the landlord would obviously have to determine the matter. In its present form, the Bill does not stipulate a period and this could create confusion and uncertainty, which the amendment now seeks to clarify.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 16, line 31 at end add :
'but the provisions of this subsection shall not operate so as to terminate the secure tenancy of any tenant under a joint tenancy created on the death of a tenant where such a joint tenant continues to use the dwelling-house as his only or principal home'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments :
No. 111, in page 15, line 36, leave out from ' below ' to end of line 38.
No. 113, in page 16, line 27, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Rifkind: This amendment extends the statutory rights to one succession following a tenant's death in order to allow a further succession where a joint tenancy is created on the death of the original tenant. The Bill provides that where a tenant dies and there are two or more persons living in the house who would qualify to succeed to the tenancy, they may opt for a joint tenancy. This matter was discussed in Committee and it is considered that the present provision in the Bill was inequitable. The amendment provides that the right to occupy the house continues for as long as any of the joint tenants who originally succeeded to it are still living there. I am sure that this will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Millan: The amendment is certainly acceptable because it moves in the


direction that we would like the Bill to move. Our amendments, which can be discussed with Government amendment No. 114, would go a lot further. I never understood the need for subsection (5) in this clause. We are providing here for the succession of tenancies. Provided that on the second tenancy—that is, the tenancy that has succeeded at some time in the past—the circumstances are repeated on the death of the second tenant, whoever he may be, a succession should apply as if the tenant had been the first tenant. Why should we not just apply the succession rules again? I do not see why we need subsection (5) at all. On an earlier occasion COSLA took the same view, that there was no reason why there should not be a succession to the succession. The Minister's amendment improves the Bill, but we would prefer that the Government accepted our amendments. Why does not the Minister eliminate subsection (5), and allow successions to take place in the circumstances laid down, even if the tenant who has died succeeded under the terms in the clause?

Mr. Rifkind: The clause in its present form provides only for a statutory minimum right of succession. There is nothing to stop a local authority providing for more extended rights of succession if it believes that that is appropriate.
We understand that in COSLA's view, while many local authorities wish to use their discretion in that way, others prefer not to do so. Therefore, a property may not become available for many generations where there are extended families. Local authorities seem to prefer the clause in its present form, allowing for one statutory right, but leaving it to the discretion of the local authority thereafter. On balance, we felt that that was more appropriate.

Mr. Millan: That is a reasonable explanation. However, succeeding to a tenancy sometimes gives rise to appalling problems and considerable injustice for members of the family, and I speak as a constituency Member.
I welcome any provision that lays down the circumstances in a convenient way. I should have gone further, but it is a matter of judgment. The clause, as amended, is much better than the situa-

tion that exists in some authorities, where members of families are sometimes dealt with pretty shabbily.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in page 17, line 10, leave out from ' instrument ' to ' and ' in line 12.
This amendment removes the current requirement in the Bill that the negative resolution procedure shall apply to orders made under the Secretary of State's power in clause 13. It is not normal that order-making powers in relation to administrative processes, such as the prescription of standard forms, should be subject to negative resolution procedure. It is for that reason that the amendment is before the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

VARIATION OF TERMS OF SECURE TENANCIES

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 20, line 16, after ' part ', insert—
'including if the sheriff thinks fit an order that the tenant shall pay to the landlord such sum as the sheriff thinks just to compensate him for any patrimonial loss occasioned by the variation.'.
This amendment makes provision for a sheriff to require a tenant to compensate his landlord for financial loss resulting from variation in the terms of his tenancy agreement ordered by the sheriff. There was discussion and concern in Committee when a similar but by no means identical amendment was put forward. As a result, the Government agreed to consider the points raised.
The new amendment specifies that any compensation that may be thought appropriate has to be
for any patrimonial loss
—in other words, any financial loss—
occasioned by the variation.
It is therefore far more specific, and will ensure that the interests of the tenant are properly protected. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Millan: I do not like the concept. It is difficult to understand the circumstances in which it would be right for a sheriff to make an order for payment by the tenant to the landlord. I disliked the concept in Committee. It is now appearing in a different form. At this time of night I shall not recommend that my hon. Friends vote on a matter that may arise only infrequently and in special circumstances. However, the idea that a tenant who has asked for a variation in the term of his tenancy should have to pay compensation to his landlord is abhorrent. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the provision. We shall return to the issue at a later stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

SUBLETTING

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 22, line 44, leave out
'or take in a lodger'.
A similar amendment was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) as a probing amendment. Unfortunately, the probes were blunt. The Minister stated :
The reason why the different terminology is used is that a sub-tenant only becomes a sub-tenant when the local authority has given its consent. A lodger is someone who is living there whether or not he has legal consent. The purpose of the phrasing in its present form is to make it clear that a tenant shall not take in lodgers until the consent of the landlord has been obtained. When consent has been obtained the lodger would become a sub-tenant. It is not necessary to define ' lodger ' because it is quite clear that until a person has become a sub-tenant he is not entitled to live in the house and make payment for doing so."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 6 March 1980 ; col. 1043.]
That gobbledegook caused some confusion. We were pleased to receive an assurance from the Minister that he would examine the drafting. He said that his intention was the same as ours. He said that if the existing drafting did not meet the problem he would be happy to consider tabling an amendment. Apparently his deliberations came to naught.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendment would dispense with the requirement for a tenant to obtain the landlord's consent to take

in a lodger. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill makes it clear that the landlord's consent should not be unreasonably withheld. There is a remedy for a tenant who seeks to take a lodger if permission is refused unreasonably. The taking in of a lodger might result in overcrowding and the landlord would then oppose it. We believe that the tenant's interests are suitably protected.

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 23, line 3, leave out lines 3 and 4, and insert—
'(2) The landlord may refuse consent under this section if it appears to it that a payment other than'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment No. 209.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendments deal with a landlord's right to refuse consent to a tenant's application to sublet or take a lodger on the ground that an unreasonable charge has been or is to be made. The amendment provides that an authority may refuse an application only if it appears that an unreasonable payment has been or is to be made so that the onus is on the authority to refuse consent, rather than on the tenant. That is a more logical way to deal with the issue.

Mr. Millan: I am doubtful about the amendment, as I am about the Bill. It is difficult for a landlord to know what a lodger or sub-tenant pays. The Bill might be impracticable because it might impose an obligation on an authority to discover difficult information which is easily given in a wilfully inaccurate form.
The present wording follows previous housing legislation. If we change the wording the provision will not be worth having. It will put the landlord in a passive position. The landlord will not actively have to inquire about whether the payment is reasonable. That information will have to come to the authority's knowledge in some magical way.
9.30 pm
A lot of subletting and taking in of lodgers that occurs is against the terms of tenants' missives and local authorities take no action. In many cases, in my


humble opinion, that is a good thing. Sometimes things happen reasonably, and it is better that local authorities do not know about them. We are, however, suggesting in new legislation that local authorities should be satisfied about these matters. One assumes that the local authorities would make some inquiry. It seems to me that the new wording almost invites them not to bother to make inquiry.
It is difficult to get this provision right. I am not convinced that there is not a third way that would involve saying "The landlord, on reasonable inquiry, had no reason to believe." I do not make a great deal of the issue, but I feel that it is undesirable to have legislation that is not practical. Sometimes, when following precedent, one can at least say that it has not done any harm. If, however, the wording is to be changed, it may be sensible to try to achieve something that will work. I do not expect an answer from the Minister. I hope that the draftsman and his officials will examine the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 23, line 31, at end add—
'(8) Where the principal tenancy is brought to an end under section 11(i) of this Act, the landlord should offer other suitable alternative accommodation to a sub-tenant within the meaning of (his section.'.
The amendment is similar in terms to an amendment that I moved in Committee relating to the position of the subtenant when the main tenancy ceases. I represent an area of Edinburgh that contains most of the lodging hostels in the east of Scotland. About 1,000 of my constituents live in such hostels. I am, therefore, familiar with the problems of the single homeless and the difficulty that single men, in late middle age, experience in obtaining suitable accommodation.
The difficulty arises primarily because local authorities in Scotland have neglected their duty to the single household. When the House passed the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, it exempted single people from the provisions of the priority categories in the statute. Many homeless people are living in hostels in large cities because local authorities have failed in their duty towards them. If there is an increase in the number of lodgers and sub-tenants as a result of

this Bill, the amendment will go some way towards meeting the desperate needs of many of these people. But it will be counter-productive to make a provision that will give these people, for a temporary period, some form of accommodation if they themselves are liable to be rendered homeless whenever the chief tenancy ceases without any obligation on the local authority to find them alternative accommodation.
It is high time that the House placed an obligation on local authorities to take seriously their housing duties to single people. It would be a useful innovation if we were to impose, in the limited case of sub-tenants, accepted sub-tenants of a chief tenant of a local authority, a duty to find them suitable accommodation should they become homeless.
When the Bill was discussed in Committee, it was not only Labour Members who expressed interest or concern for this group of people. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) made a rare intervention in our debate to indicate considerable sympathy for what I was saying. I felt that it would be useful to raise the matter again on the Floor of the House so that Conservative Members could indicate their support in this area of concern and the need to find a solution.
The Minister objected to the amendment in Committee on the ground that it went too wide. There is a genuine problem. There is a requirement to find a form of words that will achieve the objective I am seeking on a more narrow basis. I was left with the task of drafting an amendment that expresses the objective I wish to achieve that is shared by the hon. Member for Edniburgh, South.
Unfortunately, I have scant drafting assistance at my command, and during the time between Committee and Report I have been unable to find a suitable form of words which would commend itself to the Minister and would not immediately b; denounced either by him or by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) as being defective in three items.
I have, therefore, tabled the amendment very much in the form in which it was placed before the Committee in order to


take the opportunity to stress to the Minister that this is an area of concern. I am glad that he does not dispute that. It is a concern which is shared by Conservative as well as Labour Members. While I recognise that he may be unable to accept the amendment tonight, can the Minister give an undertaking that he will consider it to see whether there is some way in which the objective which I and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South share can be given effect to in the other place?

Mr. Rifkind: I recognise the concern of the hon. Member, which he has expressed both tonight and in Committee. He appreciates as much as I do the practical problems involved in this area.
First, if there was an automatic right to rehouse there would clearly be an enormous discincentive on local authorities not to grant permission for sub-tenancies to be created.
There would be the additional problem that a sub-tenant would have a great interest in the tenancy's being brought to an end, because he would then be immediately transformed from being a sub-tenant to someone who gets to the head of the waiting list and receives a guaranteed offer of accommodation by the local authority. Clearly that is not the hon. Gentleman's objective, but it is a real problem. I must confess that I am not aware of any way in which that sort of problem can be resolved.
This is something at which we shall continue to look. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestion which he feels may meet his objective without creating the sort of difficulties that I outlined in Committee and have indicated again tonight, we shall consider it carefully and sympathetically. However, there are practical problems involved, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises them.

Mr. Cook: I should like to put one option to the Minister. Many of the most awkward cases arise when the chief tenant dies. I have encountered a number of such cases myself. They arise in particularly distressing circumstances, because often the sub-tenant has lived with the chief tenant for a long time. Indeed, the sub-tenant may have thought that he had some kind of security and right to succession, only to find on the death of the chief tenant that he has not.
Will the Minister be prepared to look more sympathetically at an amendment which is confined merely to those cases in which the chief tenancy expires by the working of clause 11(1)(a), which is the subsection whereby the secured tenancy lapses by reason of the chief tenant's death? That would obviously remove his anxiety that it would give the sub-tenant a motivation to end the tenancy—unless he seriously considers the possibility of murder—in order to achieve secure and suitable alternative accommodation. It would also deal with some of the most difficult cases that arise.

Mr. Rifkind: Murder would certainly lead to the sub-tenant getting alternative accommodation, and he would no doubt have security of tenure as well. But I do not think that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
The problem is that there would be something arbitrary if the position of the sub-tenant was dramatically affected by reasons independent of himself—in other words, if he got alternative accommodation because the chief tenant died but did not get it if the tenancy was brought to an end for other reasons. I appreciate why the hon. Gentleman's thoughts are moving in that direction, and I agree that it deals with one aspect of the problem.
I shall look at the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised. If he has any subsequent suggestions, not of the particular kind that he briefly mentioned, we shall be happy to look at them to see whether they can be reconciled with the objectives which I think we both share.

Mr. Cook: I shall consider the matter further, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24

EFFECT OF WORKS ON RENT

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 25, line 3, leave out from ' by ' to first ' of ' in line 6 and insert :
'a person who has succeeded him in the tenancy or by the spouse of such a person,'.
This is a purely drafting amendment which condenses the wording following the acceptance of an Opposition amendment in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

RESTRICTION ON RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 233, in page 25, line 13, after ' (1) ' insert :
'In considering whether an applicant for local authority housing is entitled to be admitted to a housing list, an islands or district council shall take no account of the age of the applicant provided that he is over the age of 18 years.

(2)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments :
No. 237, in page 25, line 13, after ' (1) ' insert :
'In considering an application for admission to a housing list and'.
Government amendment No. 122.
No. 250, in page 25, line 15, at end add—
'(1A) In considering an application for admission to a housing list and in the allocation of local authority housing except in relation to those houses suitable for the needs of elderly persons, no account shall be taken of the age of any applicant over the age of 18.'.
No. 263, in page 25, line 15, at end insert—
'or the income of the applicant and his family.'.

Mr. Rifkind: This amendment, together with amendment No. 122, would prohibit a local authority from refusing to admit applicants over the age of 18 to its housing list solely on the ground of their age, and from discriminating against them in the allocation of housing on the basis of their age. That point was raised in Committee and the Government undertook to look at it sympathetically. These amendments reflect the fact that the Government are honouring that undertaking.
Opposition amendment No. 263 seeks, equally, to prevent exclusion based on the level of income of the applicant. On consideration, the Government feel that that is a perfectly reasonable proposal and I intend to recommend that the House accepts amendment No. 263.

Mr. Millan: We welcome amendment No. 233. It means that amendment No. 250 is redundant since it also deals with admission to a housing list not being restricted by age.
I am not completely happy about amendment No. 122, which might prohibit a local authority from taking account of the age of the applicant. In the allocation of housing for the elderly the age of the applicant is a valid consideration.

Mr. Rifkind: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that in the case of the elderly we are not so much concerned with the age of the person as with the physical and other circumstances arising out of his age. I think that, for that reason, a distinction can be drawn.

Mr. Millan: I appreciate the point. It may well be that in practical terms a local authority will take account of factors other than age. Neverthless, there are local authorities which, for perfectly legitimate reasons, set aside particular houses which they do not allocate to anyone, regardless of circumstances, below a certain age. That may be reasonable. In the case of someone in similar circumstances who requires particular accommodation, an authority may, perhaps, use sheltered housing. It might do that rather than use houses designed exclusively for tenants over a certain age. I am worried about amendment No. 122 because it might prohibit a local authority from taking age into account.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government share the objectives of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter and I am prepared to look at the drafting of the amendment to see whether it might create the type of problem referred to. If we feel that the drafting needs to be improved there will be an opportunity to do that.

Mr. Millan: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that. He knows that I have always been unhappy about the drafting of clause 25. The clause was substantially changed and improved in Committee. We shall shortly discuss an amendment which picks up a point that I made in Committee. The Minister took the view that the amendment that I then moved was not only unnecessary but undesirable. Yet he is moving that amendment later tonight.
We should approach the drafting of the clause with a certain amount of caution and modesty. If we prohibit local authorities from doing undesirable things


under this clause there will be no dispute between us. At the same time, we do not wish to draft the clause in such a way that authorities will not be able reasonably to exercise discretion and judgment in particular areas.
I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to look at the matter. I am also grateful to him for saying that he is prepared to accept amendment No 263. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) will be particularly interested in that because he knows of a local authority—and no doubt he will tell the House about it—which keeps people off the list if their income is above a certain level. There may be other authorities that do the same. I think that is highly undesirable.

Amendment No. 237 is really rather more than a drafting amendment. The clause jumps about from admission to a list and allocation, and back to admission again.

The amendment seeks to insert in the subsection the words
In considering an application for admission to a housing list and

regarding allocation on the ground of residence. The amendment is required to complement the subsection to achieve what the Government have in mind. Therefore, I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on that amendment.

I notice that Government amendment No. 233 repeats the wording of my amendment No. 237. That encourages me to believe that my amendment would add clarity to the Bill.

I repeat that even when we have gone through the Bill on Report this clause will have to be looked at carefully in the other place, because it could still be difficult to get it absolutely right.

Mr. Cook: I thank the Minister for indicating that he is willing to accept amendment No. 263, which stands in my name. I hope that I shall not discourage him from accepting it if I tell him that it is the result of that meeting on Sunday which he has maligned on several occasions this evening. It was a constructive, positive meeting, with a sensible outcome, because we produced a conclusion that even the Minister was able to share with us.
Last night we debated what I think we began to refer to as the Dundee new clause. This is the Bearsden-Milngavie amendment. It arises out of the practice at Bearsden and Milngavie of striking off the waiting list any applicant whose income reaches £6,000 or whose income jointly with his wife's exceeds £6,500. In these days, for any couple, both of whom are working at the start of their life together without children, £6,500 is not a high joint income. That has had the effect of keeping off the waiting list people who have aspired to be on it. It has also had the curious effect that some who have got on to the waiting list have subsequently found that they ceased to be eligible because their joint income had risen above £6,500.
I do not think that the Secretary of State would wish to condone the oppression of local people in this way. Therefore, I am glad that he and the Under-Secretary of State feel able to accept the amendment. In any event, it is objectionable in principle to apply an income test to people who wish to become council tenants. The more we encourage the income mix on our council estates the more likely we are to get a better balanced community. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment. I hope that what I have said will not put him off agreeing to it.

Mr. Dempsey: If I understand the Under-Secretary of State correctly, when the Bill becomes an Act local housing authorities will be required to accept applications from persons aged 18 and over.
There are circumstances in which persons under 18 years of age are allocated the tenancy of a council house. For example, when a parent has died, a young person of 16 or 17 years of age may be given the tenancy, and arrangements are made to ensure that the rent will be paid. My purpose is to ask the Minister whether this provision will preclude that type of arrangement from continuing.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I thank the Minister for accepting amendment No. 263. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said, this was the positive outcome of the meeting in Glasgow. I am also happy to advise the Minister that, due to an enormous Labour gain in Milngavie and


Bearsden, where the representation was increased by 100 per cent.—in other words, from one to two—I am now represented by a first-class Labour council.
On the negative side, as well as complimenting the Minister it enables him to recover some of his reforming image, which has been badly dented during the passage of the Bill. I am surprised that we did not spot the problem. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the tenants' charter to provide for disqualification on the grounds of income. We are indebted to a Labour councillor for identifying Milngavie and Bearsden as one of the recalcitrant authorities. I hope that the Department has identified one or two other authorities in Scotland that may be following that practice.

Mr. Rifkind: The provision will not prevent the continuation of the existing discretionary powers of local authorities. While I am always impressed by the conclusions recommended by Labour cabals on the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill, I must say that although the Conservative authority in Milngavie and Bearsden is one of the authorities which have indulged in that practice, there are two other authorities which have also indulged, one being the independent authority in Orkney and the other the Labour-controlled authority in Midlothian. There is no party bias in these matters. Perhaps that makes it easier for the Government to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in page 25, line 15, leave out ' any ' and insert ' its'.
As the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, the amendment covers an amendment that he put forward in Committee but withdrew after the Government undertook to consider the drafting of the clause to see whether it needed improvement. We have considered the clause and have concluded that there was considerable substance in the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. It is our common desire not to prevent local authorities from exercising preference within their areas. We accept that the change provided for in the amendment would achieve the objective sought by the right hon. Gentleman. I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made : No. 122, in page 25, line 15, after ' area ', insert
'nor of the age of the applicant provided that he is over the age of 18 years.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

No. 263, in page 25, line 15, at end insert
'or the income of the applicant and his family.'.—[Mr. Cook.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in page 25, line 26, leave out ' council's area ' and insert
'area of the local authority,'.
It is purely a drafting amendment, and has no policy implications.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 238, in page 25, line 29, leave out ' give ' and insert ' determine'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 239, in page 25, line 29, after ' priority ' insert
'in the allocation of housing'.

Mr. Millan: I find the whole of subsection (3) difficult to understand. The wording has no meaning. The subsection begins :
Where a local authority has rules which give priority to applicants on its housing list".
I find that quite meaningless. Give priority over whom? What does that mean? The amendments would clarify the position by saying :
Where a local authority has rules which determine priority in the allocation of housing to applicants on its housing list".
Presumably, that is the meaning of the subsection. I hope that the Minister will accept my wording. The subsection relates the rules regarding those who live outside the local authority area to those in the area who wish for transfers, but not to those in the area who have not been allocated a council house. On the basis of my constituency experience I do not understand how subsection (3) will operate in practice, even with the improved wording of the amendments.
In Glasgow, the determining factor for transfers from a less desirable area to a more desirable area is largely related to the length of tenancy, other things being equal, in the less desirable area. I


do not understand how one can equate that with an application from someone outside the area. I do not object in principle to anything that the Government are trying to do. They are trying to make the subsection effective. There is no point in allowing someone to get on to a housing list if he is given such a low priority that he will never get a house.
However, in practical terms, I do not see how subsection (3) would work, even with the clarification contained in the amendment, in the circumstances in my constituency. I hope that there will be further discussions with COSLA before the Bill becomes law. If the convention says that the provision is workable, we shall have to accept it, but I am worried about some of the wording.

Mr. Rifkind: COSLA has made representations about certain parts of the clause, but I am not aware that it has expressed any concern about subsection (3). If it submits points of substance we shall be happy to consider them, because it is our intention that the clause should work in the manner intended. The general objective is clear. We are discussing the procedure.

Amendment No. 238 would adversely affect the drafting, because by substituting "determine" for "give", it implies that a local authority's allocation rules are the final arbiter of priority. In fact, they are more often a guide which provides a basis for officials or councillors to make the final decision. It is essentially a question of drafting, but we feel that the wording suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would imply that the rules are always conclusive, when, in many authorities, they are not necessarily so, but merely imply the sort of priority that the authority would wish to provide.

The proposal in amendment No. 239 is redundant. Although we accept the right hon. Gentleman's objective, it is difficult to see how the present wording could mean anything other than a list for the allocation of housing. However, we shall consider the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. They are essentially drafting matters and if, on reflection, it seems that a drafting change is required, we shall be happy to look at it.

Mr. Millan: I shall not press the amendments, because the Under-Secretary has said that he will consider the matter. What he said about giving and determining priority demonstrates the point that I was making about the difficulty of getting the wording in the Bill right.
In Glasgow, the rules determine priority and do not give guidance that is subject to the individual judgment of officials or councillors. The rules are strictly interpreted—in my view they are interpreted too rigidly—to determine priority and not to give guidance or to allow scope to officials or councillors. If we are to make the subsection effective, we must try to get the wording to bite.
However, as the Minister has said that he will look at the matter again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made : No. 124, in page 25, line 33, leave out 'who' and insert ' whose'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 26

PUBLICATION OF RULES

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 26, line 15, leave out ' from time to time'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 126.

Mr. Rifkind: The effect of the two amendments is to change the obligation on an authority to publish its rules governing allocations in order to specify more precisely when this must be done, and this should take place initially within six months of the commencement of the operation of the provisions of the clause and thereafter within six months of any alteration in the rules——

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered.
That, at this day's sitting, the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Rifkind: This was a point raised in Committee, and I am happy to commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 126, in page 26, line 15, after 'below', insert :
'within 6 months of the commencement of this section and within 6 months of any alteration of the rules'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 26, line 22, leave out :
'by an islands or district council'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Governments amendments Nos. 132 to 134.

Mr. Rifkind: This amendment is consequential upon an Opposition amendment to the clause in Committee. It extends the obligation on local authorities to publish their rules to new towns and to the Scottish Special Housing Association.

Amendments Nos. 132 to 134 extend also existing Bill. The existing provision, which gives applicants for local authority housing the right to inspect records held by the local authority in regard to information provided by them, is also extended to new towns and SSHA housing. I am sure that this will be acceptable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 128, in page 26, line 23, after ' above ', insert ' shall be'.

No. 129, in page 26, line 24, leave out ' shall be made'.

No. 130, in page 26, line 25, leave out from ' (b) ' to ' on'.

No. 131, in page 26, line 27, leave out from ' (c) ' to ' on ' and insert ' available in summary form'.

No. 132, in page 26, line 31, leave out ' local authority'.

No. 133, in page 26, line 31, after ' housing ', insert :

'provided by a body mentioned in subsection (1) above'.

No. 134, in page 26, line 32, leave out from ' by ' to ' of ' in line 33 and insert :
'that body'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 27

REPEAL OF PROVISIONS OF HOUSING RENTS AND SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND) ACT 1975

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in page 26, leave out lines 35 to 40 and insert—
'27.—(1) Section 1(5) of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 (no provision to be made for surplus in housing revenue account) is repealed.

(2) For sub-paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 4 to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

"11.—(1) If at any time a credit balance is shown in the housing revenue account, the whole or part of it may be made available for any purpose for which the general fund of the local authority maintained under section 93 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 may lawfully be applied."

(3) Section 2 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 (reserve powers to limit rents) is repealed.'.


This replaces the original clause 27 in repealing the sections of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 which respectively prohibit the accumulation on the housing revenue account of more than a reasonable working balance and empower the Secretary of State by order to limit rents. The replacement clause 27 contains new provisions which allow local authorities considerable freedom on housing revenue accounts.
These were matters which were discussed in Committee. This is thought to be a more appropriate way of formulating the provision.
With regard to the credit balances of housing revenue accounts, these matters were put forward to COSLA, and the housing committee of the convention has indicated that it is content with what is put forward.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Millan: The Government know that we are wholly opposed to clause 27 as it stands. I should have liked an opportunity to move an amendment that would have expressed that opposition. Unfortunately, our amendments were not selected. But the Government have at least facilitated us in our desire to have a vote on these provisions by redrafting the clause : and putting it on the Amendment paper.
We object to both parts of the clause—the question of allowing local authorities to accumulate surpluses in the housing revenue account and also the fact that the Government are abolishing the power of the Secretary of State to intervene with reserve power to limit rents in suitable circumstances. If we did not have the redrafted version, clause 27 would still be in the Bill. We must do

the best we can in these inadequate circumstances as we have no amendments of our own to debate. It is to express our disagreement with the clause that I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 209.

Division No. 359]
AYES
[10.05 pm


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Timothy
Lang, Ian


Aitken, Jonathan
Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan


Alton, David
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lee, John


Ancram, Michael
Fairgrleve, Russell
Le Marchant, Spencer


Arnold, Tom
Faith, Mrs Shella
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Aspinwall, Jack
Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John


Beith, A. J.
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fry, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Best, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Major, John


Blggs-Davison, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mates, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Braine, Sir Bernard
Greenway, Harry
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Bright, Graham
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Brittan, Leon
Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Mellor, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Kannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Monro, Hector


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Fergus


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heddle, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hill, James
Mudd, David


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Murphy, Christopher


Channon, Paul
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Myles, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hooson, Tom
Neale, Gerrard


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hordern, Peter
Needham, Richard


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Neubert, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Newton, Tony


Cockeram, Eric
Howells, Geraini
Normanton, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Cranley


Corrie, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jessel, Toby
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parris, Mathew


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Patten, John (Oxford)


Dover, Denshore
Kimball, Marcus
Pattle, Geoffrey


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Pawsey, James


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Penhaligon, David


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Pollock, Alexander


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lamont, Norman
Porter, George




Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speller, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Prior, Rt Hon James
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (Perth & Perthshire)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Ralson, Timothy
Stanley, John
Wall, Patrick


Rathbone, Tim
Steel, Rt Hon David
Waller, Gary


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Steen, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stevens, Martin
Ward, John


Ronton, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kennth


Rhodes James, Robert
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Ridsdale, Julian
Tapsell, Peter
Wheeler, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tebbit, Norman
Whitney, Raymond


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Rossi, Hugh
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thompson, Donald
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Scott, Nicholas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thornton, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Silvester Fred
Viggers, Peter
Mr. John Cope and


Sims,Roger
Waddington,David
Mr. John Wakeham.


Skeet, T. H. H.






NOES


Abse, Leo
Dubs, Alfred
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Adams, Allen
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Anderson, Donald
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eastham, Ken
Kinnock, Neil


Aahton, Joe
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Leadbitter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ennais, Rt Hon David
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ewing, Harry
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank
McCartney, Hugh


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fitch, Alan
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fitt, Gerard
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bradley, Tom
Flannery, Martin
McKelvey, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Magee, Bryan


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek
Meson, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Foulkes, George
Maxton, John


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Meacher, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carter-Jones. Lewis
George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (Ees Kilbride)


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenahawe)


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon Charlea (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Newens, Stanley


Cowans, Harry
Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ogden, Eric


Crowther, J. S.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
O'Halloran, Michael


Cryer, Bob
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Haynes, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Park, George


Davidson, Arthur
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Parker, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Homewood, William
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
Hooley, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Horam, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Deakins, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Prese Ott, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Huckfield, Les
Race, Reg


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Radice, Giles


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Dixon, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville
Richardson, Jo


Dobson, Frank
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dormand, Jack
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Douglas, Dick
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Robertson, George







Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Spriggs, Leslie
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rooker, J. W.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Whitlock, William


Rosa, Ernest (Dundee West)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ryman, John
Straw, Jack
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Sever, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sheerman, Barry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Woodall, Alec


Short, Mrs Renée
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wright, Shella


Silverman, Julius
Tilley, John
Young, David (Bolton East)


Skinner, Dennis
Watkins, David



Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Weetch, Ken
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Snape, Peter
Welsh, Michael
Mr. George Morton and


Soley, Clive
White, Frank R.(Bury & Radcliffe)
Mr. James Tinn.


Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 30

LOCAL AUTHORITY INDEMNITIES FOR BUILDING SOCIETIES, ETC.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move amendment No. 258, in page 29, line 13, after "council", insert "or the Housing Corporation".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we shall take Government amendments Nos. 259 to 262.

Mr. Younger: These amendments will extend to the Housing Corporation the power provided by clause 30—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be convenient for the whole House to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Younger: It would be convenient for me, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The effect of these amendments will be to extend to the Housing Corporation the power provided by clause 30 to local authorities to indemnify building societies in respect of mortgages. Clause 104 of the Housing Bill as amended in Committee provides the corporation with similar power in respect of its operations in England and Wales.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 259, in page 29, line 17, after 'council ', insert
'or, as the case may be, the Housing Corporation'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 29, line 22, leave out ' make any payment ' and insert
'perform any obligation imposed on him by the standard security'.
This amendment extends the circumstances in which a local authority can

indemnify a building society against loss under clause 30. At present, clause 30(1) refers only to a failure by the borrower to make payments, but it was pointed out by the building societies that there may be other forms of default which may involve a building society in financial loss.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 260, in page 29, line 24, after ' council ', insert
'or, as the case may be, the Housing Corporation'.

No. 261, in page 29, line 36, after ' with ',
insert ' the Housing Corporation and with'.

No. 262, in page 30, line 11, after ' authority ', insert '
on the Housing Corporation'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Clause 33

SHORT TENANCIES

Mr. Younger: I beg to move amendment No. 137, in page 30, line 41, after ' dwelling-house ', insert
', except where he was then a tenant under a short tenancy or a statutory tenant following on the expiry of a short tenancy ;'.
Before dealing with the amendment, I should point out that there is a misprint. The figure "2" in line 2 of page 31 should be "5". That will be put right. The amendment is necessary to enable a further short tenancy to be granted to a sitting tenant under a short tenancy. A Government amendment to clause 33(1) (a) was introduced in Committee to prevent the grant of a short tenancy to existing protected or statutory tenants which would thus deprive them of their unlimited security of tenure. That amendment had additional unintended effects regarding short tenancies which the present amendment corrects. I think that both sides of the House will support this amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Millan: It is interesting to know that there is a misprint in line 2 of page 31. As the Bill stands, it is incompatible with the words at the foot of the page. I tabled an amendment to deal with that. This amendment has saved us from debating my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 31, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
'(ii) the landlord has applied for and been granted a certificate of fair rent under section 41 of the 1971 Act and has, within 14 days after the commencement of the tenancy, made an application for that fair rent to be registered under subsection (4) of that section.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take Government amendment No. 141 and amendment No. 142, in page 31, line 25, at end insert
'and the rent registered for the dwelling-house shall take effect from the commencement of the tenancy'.

Mr. Younger: For the convenience of the House, I do not propose to move amendment No. 141. Amendment No. 142 is more effective than amendment No. 141. All the amendments arise from the desire of both sides of the Committee to ensure that a fair rent, registration of which is one condition that must be satisfied for a short tenancy, takes effect from the commencement of the tenancy. I hope that the amendment is acceptable to all parties.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 142, in page 31, line 25, at end insert
'and the rent registered for the dwelling-house shall take effect from the commencement of the tenancy'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in page 31, line 30, at end insert
'if he is satisfied with respect to every part of that area that the number of persons seeking to become tenants there of the dwelling-houses exceeding a specified rateable value, or of any class or description of dwelling-houses exceeding a specified rateable value, is not substantially greater than the number of such dwelling-houses in that part.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the ending of compulsory rent registration by statutory instrument unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that a supply of certain types of houses, or houses above a certain rateable value,

exceeds demand. It seeks to restrict the ending of rent registration to that category of property. That follows section 117 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to end rent registration by statutory instrument in any area of highly rated houses or houses of a certain type. If compulsory rent registration is to be ended in any area for short tenancies, those criteria should set the limits for such a decision.

Mr. Younger: I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment. It attempts to circumscribe the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can exercise his order-making power to dispense with the requirement that a fair rent must be registered for a dwelling let on a short tenancy. This topic exercised the Committee. My hon. Friend agreed to consider whether it was possible to prescribe the circumstances in which the Secretary of State could use his power. I think that he said that it might be unfortunately and unintentionally restrictive to do that. Having thought about the issue since then, I am bound to reaffirm that view.
This must be seen as a reserve power, but one that is, none the less, necessary. I do not envisage its use being contemplated until we all have a great deal of experience of the operation of short tenancies and are in a position to appreciate their implications. We can safely rely on the workings of the annulment procedure which is written into the Bill. That procedure can be invoked if there are any misgivings about the future use of these powers.
I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but I am afraid that his amendment is unduly restrictive, and therefore I ask him to withdraw it, having made a useful point.

Mr. George Robertson: After our fairly lengthy discussions in Committee, the Secretary of State now gives as his reason for not accepting the amendment the fact that it would circumscribe his actions. Most of the Secretary of State's actions in every field that one would care to mention should be subject to circumscription. Therefore, I do not think that there is any great strength in his argument.
We are trying to lay down guidelines so that people will know about these reserve powers that the Secretary of State is keeping to himself. This is yet another of the secondary legislation powers that will be reserved to the Secretary of State as a result of the Bill.
We all know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is a reasonable and moderate man in Cabinet terms—[Interruption.] Even if my generosity is being questioned by some of my hon. Friends, I still think that they will be willing to accept that this is a reserve power that is unlikely to be used in relation to the present incumbent of the job. But there is no guarantee that the Prime Minister will not change the Secretary of State overnight. If any of us were willing to give this Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt, there are a number of his colleagues to whom we would give no benefit at all.
There is a case for saying that there should be a circumscription on the actions of the Secretary of State. Those people who will be affected by short tenancies should at least have the right to know that the one feeble protection given to them in the Bill might be removed from them. I agree that this is likely to be a reserve power, but we are not content to leave the position and allow the Secretary of State to remove this protection for short-term tenancies.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I do not have the same faith in the negative procedure as the Secretary of State because it is very rare that it can be properly invoked. The whole object of the amendment was to circumscribe the powers. I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that we need proper guidelines. There is a parallel in earlier legislation.
However, in the absence of any assertion from the hon. Member for Hamilton that he would wish to me to press the amendment, I shall beg to ask leave to withdraw it, even though I do not agree in any way with what the Secretary of State has said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 31, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) A notice will not be valid for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above unless it com-

plies in form with the requirements of regulations which the Secretary of State may by order make by statutory instrument.'.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a prescribed form is laid down for notifying tenants that a tenancy is to be a short one. The Bill merely empowers the Secretary of State to prescribe a form but does not compel him to do so.
Such a prescribed form could ensure uniformity in explaining to new tenants of short tenancies the details of this form of tenure. It could be drawn up in similar form to statutory instrument 1976 No. 46 S. 3, which obliges private landlords giving notice to quit to inform the tenants of their legal rights. It should inform tenants of their rights and obligations under the short tenancy, giving details of all conditions of tenancy, their rights to rent books, return of deposits, rent registration, an explanation of how the tenancy can be terminated, notice to quit regulations, rent allowances and so forth.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. However, the amendment has the same effect as the words that it proposes to replace. Clause 33(4) empowers the Secretary of State to make an order by statutory instrument, prescribing the form of notice that a landlord is required to serve on a tenant informing him that his tenancy is a short tenancy. It is implicit in that—and the statutory instrument may be expected to make it explicit—that any notice that does not comply with the prescribed form is invalid.
10.30 pm
The hon. Gentleman points out that the Secretary of State is empowered but not obliged to prescribe the form. That is true. However, the amendment has the same defect, if it is a defect. It says that
the Secretary of State may by order make by statutory instrument",
and so on.

Mr. Wilson: I am partially reassured. I should prefer the context to be explicit rather than implicit. When matters are implied, there is always a danger. However, the significance will not be fully appreciated by tenants involved in the great adventure of the new short tenancies, and, in those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34

EFFECT OF TENANCY BEING SHORT TENANCY

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 147, in page 31, line 41, at end insert
or such period as may be inserted in the tenancy agreement, whichever is the lesser.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 243, in page 31, line 42, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Robertson: The amendment would provide slight flexibility in the period of notice given by people on short tenancies if they wish to terminate them before the dates identified in the Bill. In Committee the Minister agreed that we had a point. He said that he would consider the matter to see whether the figures provided by the Opposition were more appropriate.
The amendment would help transient people, whom the Government intend to assist by short tenancies, however, sceptical we may be about those benefits.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. However, it is essentially a matter of judgment.
In Committee my hon. Friend undertook to take a fresh look at the periods of notice that a tenant must give. There is no evidence to suggest that the periods of notice for which clause 34(2) provides do not hold the balance equitably between the competing interests of landlord and tenant. My hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Gentleman setting out his conclusions.
The periods in the Bill keep Scotland in step with England and Wales, which is material. It will further assist those moving about the country.
In Committee it was pointed out that amendment No. 348, which amendment No. 147 repeats, is defective. It allows any period of notice, however short, to be adequate, provided that it has been agreed between the parties. That is awkward. Section 131 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 provides that a notice to quit shall not be valid unless it is served at least four weeks before it is due to take effect. There is therefore already a statutory minimum of four weeks, and the amendment would conflict with that.

Amendment No. 243 would remove the requirement that a tenant with a short tenancy of between two and five years shall give three months notice of his intention to give up the tenancy. As the amendment does not offer a specific alternative, the Opposition might feel that sections 3 and 4 of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act 1911 should apply automatically to such tenancies. The general effect is that the tenant of such a tenancy would be required to give only 40 days' notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy. The legal position is that if retained Clause 34(2)(b) would override the provisions of the 1911 Act.

Whether there is need for a technical amendment must be explored further. I shall explore it in case an alteration is needed.

Mr. Robertson: If the Secretary of State had been present to hear our debates on the rural areas and on the protection of accommodation for the elderly, perhaps he would not have proclaimed so loudly the need to bring the English and Scottish legislation into line. The Minister has agreed that there might be a technical difficulty which has not received full consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in page 32, line 2, after ' law ', insert
', but subject to subsection (5)(b) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 151, 152 and 155.

Mr. Younger: The amendments are designed to safeguard the position of a lawful sub-tenant under a short tenancy where for any reason the tenancy of the principal tenant is terminated before the expiry of the period specified in the tenancy agreement. The amendments ensure that a lawful sub-tenant is entitled to security of tenure for the balance of the period of the tenancy agreement.
The amendments honour a commitment given in Committee to protect a subtenant when the landlord would otherwise be able to recover possession against the principal tenant. The Opposition might wish not to move amendment No. 149.

Amendments Nos. 152 and 155 relate to a situation in which, at the end of a period specified in a short tenancy agreement, the landlord takes no action to recover possession of the dwelling. When the landlord does not serve notice of his intention to recover possession before or within three months after the termination of the period specified in the tenancy agreement, the tenancy will be continued as a short tenancy for 12 months.

Mr. Millan: We welcome the amendments which arise from points we made in Committee. One can always argue that the protection should go even further, but the Government have responded. We shall not move amendment No. 149.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made : No. 150, in page 32, line 5, at end add
'or against any statutory tenant who has succeeded to the tenancy'.

No. 151, in page 32, line 13, at end add
'(5)(a) Where a short tenancy is terminated by the death of the tenant before the expiry of the period specified in the tenancy agreement any statutory tenant by succession within the meaning of Schedule 1 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 shall be entitled to retain possession of the premises until the expiry of that period only.

(b) Where a short tenancy is terminated for any reason before the expiry of the period specified in the tenancy agreement, any subtenant of the dwelling-house shall be entitled to retain possession of the premises until the expiry of that period only.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above "subtenant" means any person deriving title from the original tenant or from a subtenant, provided that his title has not been granted in contravention of the tenancy agreement.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 35

CONDITIONS APPLYING TO LANDLORD'S RIGHT TO RECOVERY OF POSSESSION

Amendment made : No. 152, in page 32, line 20, after ' shall ', insert
'either before or not later than 3 months after the expiry of the period specified in the tenancy agreement, or in a case to which subsection (4) below applies the expiry of a period of 12 months for which the tenancy is continued under that subsection'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 32, line 33, leave out from ' is ' to ' that ' in line 34 and insert ' just and equitable'.
In Committee the Opposition were anxious about the discretion of the court to disregard minor technical breaches. The Committee was anxious to ensure that the provision which was regarded as desirable should be implemented so that it did not act unfairly to the detriment of the tenant. By introducing this requirement that it has to be "just and equitable" for the sheriff to use his discretion in the manner provided, we hope to meet the point raised by the Opposition. I commend the amendment.

Mr. Millan: We do not like this provision in the Bill. We are grateful, however, for the fact that the wording has been improved.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 155, in page 32, line 44, at end add—
'(4) Where a landlord fails timeously to serve a notice in compliance with subsection (2) above, the tenancy shall be continued as a short tenancy for a period of 12 months beginning with the expiry of the period specified in the tenancy agreement.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in page 32, line 44, at end insert—
'(5) The Secretary of State shall by order made by statutory instrument prescribe the form of notice required under subsection (2) above.'.
The object of this amendment, similar to amendment No. 145, is to bring notice of intention to move for tenancies and short tenancies into line with notices to quit for other regulated tenancies. The effect would be to use the procedure I have already described under the 1976 statutory instrument to lay down certain criteria. I was previously attacked for using the word "may". On this occasion, I have used the word "shall". I hope that the change will induce the Minister to accept this small burnt offering.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry to sound uncharitable, but, despite the change of vocabulary, it is not thought appropriate that the statutory instrument procedure should be used for this purpose. The notice in question is the notice that the landlord is required to serve on a tenant of his intention to seek an order for recovery of possession of a dwelling house let on a short tenancy. It would be unprecedented for something of this straightforward nature to be the subject of a


statutory instrument requirement regarding its form. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will feel that this form of parliamentary scrutiny is not necessary.

Mr. Wilson: For reasons of exhaustion, inertia and the lateness of hour, I am prepared to ask the House to grant me leave to withdraw the amendment. My request is not based on the explanation that the Minister has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36

LIMITS ON RENT INCREASES

Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 249, in page 33, line 7, after ' Act ' insert
'and in relation to rent agreements (whether made before or after the commencement of this section) where no rent is registered under a regulated tenancy'.
The first subsection of clause 36 repeals sections 7 to 9 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975. As the Minister knows, we are opposed to the repeal of these provisions which provide for limits on rent increases in the private sector and phasing arrangements when rent increases take place. Clause 36(2) provides, however, certain amelioration. It allows the Secretary of State to impose maximum increases over an annual period by order. I notice that this applies only to tenancies at present covered by section 7 of the 1975 Act—regulated tenancies where a fair rent has been registered. It does not apply to section 8 of the 1975 Act where the rent is payable under a rent agreement. I believe I am right in saying that the provisions about the maximum increase of £78 a year equally apply.
The 1975 Act involved complicated drafting, but the effective result was the same. The £78 increase applied to rent agreements as well as to registered tenancies. Subsection (2) will apply only to registered rents and not to rent agreements. The purpose of my amendment is to add the protection to rent agreements where there is no rent registered under a regulated tenancy. If the Government defend subsection (1) of this clause by saying that there is some protection under subsection (2), I cannot see why such protection is not extended to rent agreements where there is no regu-

lated tenancy. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: This amendment relates to a situation where the tenant and the landlord have freely and without statutory control reached agreement on the appropriate rent.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said that under the 1975 legislation the limit for other forms of tenancy was applied to this form of rent agreement. He is correct about that, but it is worth pointing out that 1975 was the only example when there was any statutory interference in rent agreements reached between landlords and tenants.
The Government's view is that it is inappropriate to have statutory rules and controls on rent agreements, because by definition they are voluntarily agreed between landlords and tenants. If a tenant is unhappy with any proposal put to him by the landlord and if there is any disagreement, it is possible for either party to go to the rent officer or the rent assessment committee to get a fair rent registered. Therefore, there is an absolute protection for both parties in the event of a disagreement in a manner which ensures that one party cannot impose on the other terms which are unacceptable to him.
If we are to continue with rent agreements on a voluntary basis, and if the parties to such agreements are content with what has been arranged, they should be free to have the agreements implemented. If, on the other hand, either party, but particularly the tenant, is unhappy, he can apply to have the fair rent system applied. That matter is preserved under this legislation.
For that reason, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, although there was the one exception to the normal rule, it is more sensible that there should not be statutory intervention in rent agreements which are voluntarily reached. I cannot recommend the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. Millan: I do not find that a satisfactory explanation. One difficulty in this area is that, although legally what is at issue is a voluntary agreement, in many circumstances the agreement is not in the real sense voluntary in that the landlord and tenant are on all fours and have equal rights and interests in reaching the


agreement. Often a tenant who is desperate for accommodation may commit himself to undesirable terms and be unwilling to exercise his legal rights in the legislation. The established precedent of rent increases being controlled in the 1975 Act is being removed without any protection for those who are subject to rent agreements as distinct from regulated tenancies.
Even if the Government had wanted to draw a distinction, which the Minister is drawing, between these agreements, it would still be possible under this clause for the maximum amount in rent agreements to be specified at a different level from the maximum amount in regulated tenancies. I regret that the Government are not willing to do that.
I hope that the Minister will think about this matter again. What I have suggested is logical in terms of what the Minister is doing under the clause. If the end result were different limits for the one category—perhaps higher for one than for the other—I would regret that, but it is a possibility. I should prefer some protection to be written into the legislation. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 157, in page 33, line 11, leave out
'after the commencement of this section '
and insert
'with the relevant date for the purposes of sections 40 and 41 of that Act or with any subsequent anniversary of that date'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 158.

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments are designed to specify that the 12-month periods for which the maximum annual increase is to be prescribed date from the date of registration and each subsequent anniversary of that date. The Bill in its previous form required the clarification that these amendments provide.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 158, in page 33, line 15, leave out
'after the commencement of this section '

and insert
'with the relevant date for the purposes of sections 40 and 41 of that Act or with any subsequent anniversary of that date'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 159, in page 33, line 22, at end add—
'(3A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above "rental income" does not include sums paid to the landlord in respect of the provisions of any services.'.
This is a minor technical amendment designed to make it clear that the service element in any rent is exempt from the maximum increase limits. That means that it is recoverable in full in the same way that it is exempt from the current phasing limits.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in page 33, line 29, at end insert—
'(5) The 1971 Act shall be amended in sections 19(2), 21(2)(b), 31(1), 31(4), and 43 (3)(a) by substituting for every reference to any of sections 7 to 9 of the 1975 Act a reference to section 36 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 161.

Mr. Rifkind: These are minor technical amendments to substitute for references to the rent increase phasing provisions of the 1975 Act references to the rent increase provisions of clause 36.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 161, in page 33, line 29, at end add—
'(6) In Schedule 6 to the 1971 Act (applications for registrations of rents) in paragraph 15 after the word "1975" there shall be inserted the words "or of an order made under section 36 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 37

AMENDMENTS TO PROVISIONS RELATING TO LIMITS FOR DWELLING-HOUSES LET BY HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS AND THE HOUSING CORPORATION

Amendment made : No. 162, in page 33, line 37, leave out '(1A)' and insert ' (2) ',—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 38

PROHIBITION OF EVICTION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW TO APPLY TO PART VII CONTRACTS.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 34, line 4, leave out from ' applies ' to ' and ' in line 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments :
Government amendment No. 164.
No. 165, in page 34, line 10, leave out from ' granted ' to ' and ' in line 12.
Government amendment No. 166.

Mr. Millan: The effect of this amendment is to make the provisions apply to contracts whether created before or after the commencement of this clause. Government amendments Nos. 164 and 166—I hope that I am reading them correctly—do exactly the same thing. I do not mind the wording, but if that is the intention of the Government I am glad that I tabled my amendment first. I am also glad that the Government are following suit.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to confirm that the Government amendments achieve exactly the same purpose as the Opposition amendments. The draftsmen have advised me that, in their view, their drafting is preferable. I do not wish to make a major issue out of it, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for indicating that he will not press his amendment.

Mr. Millan: I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Amendments made :

No. 164, in page 34, line 5, at beginning insert ' before or'.

No. 166, in page 34, line 10, after ' granted ', insert ' before or'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 40

CONVERSION OF ALL REMAINING CONTROLLED TENANCIES

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 167 in page 35, line 7, at end insert—

'(4) In case 8 of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act for the words "if the dwelling-house is let on or subject to a controlled tenancy after 7th November 1956" there shall be substituted the words "if the dwelling-house was on 7th November 1956 let on or subject to a controlled tenancy, after the last-mentioned date.".'.
This is a technical amendment made necessary by the abolition of controlled tenancies by clause 40. The amendment makes it clear that the proviso shall continue to apply to controlled tenancies converted to rent regulation by the Bill. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 245, in page 35, line 7, at end insert—
'(4) This section shall not come into effect before 1st January 1984.'.
This amendment would normally have attracted a major speech from me because it deals with an important principle. It deals with the remaining houses in Scotland still subject to controlled tenancies which are now brought into the scope of regulated tenancies, which cover the majority of houses in Scotland.
We drew attention to this issue in the consultation paper that reviewed the Rent Acts in 1977. The issue is the problem of the diminishing number of houses in Scotland. Nevertheless, because of the proposals by the Government we think that it would be pushing it to bring within the rigmarole of rent procedures the diminishing number of houses which, because of their age and the age of the tenants, will disappear in a few years.
It is a matter of regret that, even after a long debate in Committee, we have had no assurances or encouragement from the Under-Secretary. Perhaps now that he has had time to reflect on the matter he will give an assurance that he will draw the attention of rent officers, in accordance with the suggestion of the Scottish Consumers Council, to the need to advise social work departments about such cases and to be particularly sympathetic in the handling of the cases in the rent regulation machinery. If the hon. Gentleman will give that assurance, I shall be happy.

Mr. Rifkind: About 3,000 houses are involved in this matter. They have had their rents pegged at 1957 levels, in many cases at about £10 or £12 a year. It is


clearly absurd that such rents should be permitted, even given the poor quality of much of the housing concerned.
For reasons that the hon. Gentleman anticipated, it is not possible for me to recommend acceptance of the amendment, but I shall be happy to see what we can do to ensure that rent officers and others give advice to tenants who may be affected by the proposed change.

Mr. Brown: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41

DETERMINATION OF FAIR RENT

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 168, in page 35, line 15, after ' committee ' insert ',
subject to the provisions of this section,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 169 and 170.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendments Nos. 168 and 170 secure the repositioning in the clause of the words
subject to the provisions of this section
and follow a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) in Committee.
The purpose of amendment No. 169 is to ensure that a rent officer or rent assessment committee is able, if the occasion arises, to arrive at a fair rent for a property in regard to other property that may not be identical. I understand that the amendment has caused some concern to the Opposition, and I am prepared not to press it so that we may consider the point raised with me by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).

Mr. Millan: Amendment No. 169 concerns me, because it would mean that, in considering a rent, the rent officer or rent assessment committee would be able to look at other rents in the area, even if they were not for comparable properties.
I understand why the Government think that that may be sensible, but I believe that it could have difficult practical consequences for tenants. It is difficult for them to produce evidence of comparable

rents for comparable properties. It will be much more difficult if even that qualification is removed from the Bill. The landlord is in a much better position to get evidence of other rents, whether for comparable properties or for those that are not comparable, that suit his arguments. When a matter is under appeal, the rent assessment committees ask tenants to try to bring forward evidence on comparable rents. That causes tenants considerable difficulty.
If the change were made, it would make the position of tenants, vis-a-vis the landlords, extremely weak, because I am sure that the landlord would be in a much better position to produce evidence for the rent assessment committee. I shall be grateful if the Minister will look at the problem again. I understand what is being attempted, but I believe that it could have serious consequences for some tenants.

11 pm

Mr. Allan Stewart: I seek an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister about the effect of clause 41 as revised by the amendment. It is important to put this point on the record. Landlords, including those subject to the fair rent procedure, in both the public and private sectors, may, and do, charge rents below the maximum level. For example, the National Coal Board charges its tenants concessionary rents. That also applies in the private sector. One West Scotland company states :
This company has always pursued a policy of registering a few rents and then offering our tenants Rent Agreements at figures considerably below those determined by the Rent Assessment Committee. At present some 97 per cent. of our tenants have such Agreements".
The assurance that I seek from the Minister is that the clause, as revised, will not result in rent officers and rent assessment committees being able to use the lower rents as the basis for reducing the level of registered rents. That would be unfair to property owners, and would discourage them from charging rents below the registered levels. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the clause, as revised, will not have that effect.

Mr. Rifkind: The fair rent is the maximum rent that may be charged, and no more than that. As my hon. Friend


indicated, there is a precedent with the National Coal Board, which is charging below maximum rents. Rent officers and rent assessment committees take into account those factors wherever there are special circumstances which indicate that the rent charged is not a comparable rent. They make allowance for that, and there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent them from continuing to do so in future.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 170, in page 35, line 16, leave out from ' and ' to first ' to ' in line 17.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 42

CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 171, in page 35, line 30, after ' registration ', insert—
'and the provisions of section 44(A) of this Act shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to an application made under this section as they apply to an application made under the said section 44(A).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 172.

Mr. Rifkind: These are purely drafting amendments and do not have any policy implications.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 172, in page 35, leave out lines 31 to 43.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 43

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF RENT TRIBUNALS TO RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 248, in page 36, line 3, after ' functions ', insert—
'in respect of the approval or determination of rents shall be transferred to the rent officers provided for in section 37 of that Act and in all other respects'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 173, in page 36, line 4, at end insert—
'except in the area of fair rent determination which shall be transferred to the rent officer'.

Mr. Maxton: An amendment on this matter was tabled in Committee. It was rather different from this amendment and was faulty. The Minister agreed to consider the matter, and appeared to be interested in our proposal. He could not give a commitment, but he agreed to consider the matter on Report. No amendments have been tabled by him. He wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) about the matter, and I have seen that letter. However, I still feel that this amendment is the right way to deal with the matter, and it should at least be put on record. It would be better to transfer the determination of rents from the rent tribunals to rent officers rather than to rent assessment committees.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendment is concerned with the implications of the abolition of rent tribunals. The hon. Gentleman suggests that those matters should be considered by rent officers. The Government's view remains as indicated in Committee, primarily for the reason that there are only about 50 cases of that sort to be dealt with in any one year. Rent assessment committees deal both with the question of rent and with the question of security of tenure. It would be confusing for the tenant if he had to go to the rent assessment committee for the security aspect but to the rent officer for the rent aspect. It is much more sensible with such a small number to have this dealt with by the rent assessment committee.
I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is a more logical way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Maxton: I would not necessarily accept the Minister's logic as being any better than mine, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSE SUBJECT TOREGULATED TENANCY

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 174, in page 38, line 36, after ' 11', insert ' in paragraph (a), after "Case", insert
(notwithstanding, in the case of a notice given under this paragraph before the commencement


of section 52 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, that the notice may not have referred to any of subparagraphs (ii) to (v) of paragraph (c))" ; and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following amendments :
No. 246, in page 39, line 11, leave out paragraph (v).
Government amendment No. 175.
No. 247, in page 39, line 25, leave out paragraph (iv).

Mr. Rifkind: The effect of the amendment and of Government amendment No. 175 is to ensure that the notices served under cases 11 and 11A as they read prior to amendment are valid should a landlord seek to recover possession under one of the additional grounds inserted in these cases. This is, I think, a non-controversial amendment and I am sure it will be acceptable to the House.
I shall not comment on the Opposition amendments until they have been spoken to by the Opposition.

Mr. Millan: I want to put on record again that I am not at all happy—I think I raised this point in Committee—with paragraph (v) on page 39. It is rather unfortunate if the tenant is put at a disadvantage because of the default of his landlord in paying his mortgage, or whatever the circumstances may be. I think that the Minister said that he would look at that, and we have tabled our amendments accordingly. I should prefer that the paragraph were eliminated from the Bill, but at least I would be interested to know what the Minister feels about it, having had an opportunity to consider it since the Committee stage.

Mr. Rifkind: We are still faced with the difficulty that, if the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted and the Bill changed, the default of a debtor would transform what had been intended to be only a temporary letting into a letting with full Rent Act security. This clearly was not the intention of any of the parties at the time the original tenancy was created, and it is for this basic reason that the amendment is inappropriate.
I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be inappropriate to give full Rent Act protection if that had not been the intention of any of the parties involved. For this reason. I hope

that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 175, in page 39, line 17, after 'IIA', insert
'in paragraph (a), after "Case", insert "(notwithstanding, in the case of a notice given under this paragraph before the commencement of section 52 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, that the notice may not have referred to any of subparagraphs (iii) to (v) of paragraph (c))" ; and'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 54

IMPROVEMENT GRANTS TO BE AVAILABLE TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF TENANT

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in page 41, leave out lines 4 to 36 and insert—
'54(1) For paragraph (a) of section 2(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

"(a) unless they are satisfied that the owner of every parcel of land on which the improvement works are to be or are being carried out, other than land proposed to be sold or leased under section 145(4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966, has consented in writing to the application and to being bound by any conditions imposed by or under section 9 of this Act ;" and after subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 177.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendment removes all restrictions on the classes of person who may apply for improvement or repair grants, save for the one requirement that an applicant who is not the owner of the property must obtain the owner's consent to the application being made.

Amendment No. 177 is a consequential amendment to amendment No. 176.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 177, in page 41, line 37, leave out from ' 11(5) ' to end of line 39 and insert
'of this Act shall not apply where an applicant for an improvement grant is not the owner of the land to which the application relates.'.—Mr. Rifkind.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 179, in page 41, line 43, leave out ' to (c) ' and insert ' and (b)'.
This is a purely drafting amendment, with no policy implications.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 180, in page 42, line 2, after ' amounts ', insert ' of grant ' ;.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 185 to 187 and amendments Nos. 252 to 254.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendment No. 180 is simply a drafting change.
With regard to amendments Nos. 185 to 187, orders and regulations will be laid shortly increasing the maximum approved expenses for standard amenities and repair grants in line with the movement in costs since the levels were set in 1977. The amendments ensure that when the Bill comes into effect the various amounts specified will take account of the revaluations proposed.
The Liberal Party's amendments Nos. 252 to 254 have a similar effect with regard to the matters covered by the other amendments.

Mr. David Steel: rose——

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Steel: The level of improvement grants was not discussed in Committee. Impatient Conservative Members must realise that it is new matter that we wish to discuss on Report.
The Under-Secretary of State has proposed an upgrading of the levels of standard improvement grants. I contend that the upgrading will prove inadequate to meet the increase in building costs over the past few years. If the rise in building costs is coupled with the planned reduction in Government expenditure on new housing, it is clear that there will be little development in the provision of homes of a tolerable standard in Scotland over the next four or five years. It is essential that the House considers whether it is being realistic in saying that improvements involving putting in an inside toilet, a bathroom, re-roofing, damp-coursing, wall adaptation and internal alterations can be carried out within the proposed ceiling of £2,000. Surely that is unrealistic.
I accept that in my amendments I may have gone too far in the opposite direction. I make that concession before the hon. Gentleman replies. I did that deliberately because it is necessary to bring home to the House the realistic cost, which is probably about £10,000. If it is argued that to encourage people to bring their houses to a tolerable standard it is necessary to offer a grant of about 50 per cent., that means making available a grant of about £5,000.
What is a grant of £5,000 of public money to bring a house to a tolerable standard as against the cost of a new house? Surely a grant of that sort is still value for money. The Government have set out their planned reduction in public expenditure in 1983–84 on new house building, and it is important that we pay attention to the possibility of rescuing houses through improvement. I have long held the view that it is important to abolish the bulldozer mentality and to rescue the housing stock.
I have a constituency interest. In 1967 there appeared the famous Cullingworth report on Scotland's older houses. It pinpointed the town in Scotland with the largest number of unfit houses. It was not Glasgow but Galashiels, in my constituency.
I remember the day when the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State came to Galashiels in the days when there was a town council. At that time he was the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in another Conservative Government. He was responsible for housing. He felt strongly, as I did, about the need for the council to get on and remove the blot and ensure that the houses were brought up to standard.
I remember the then Under-Secretary saying to the town council that his target date for bringing all the houses in the town up to a tolerable standard was 1980. We are now in 1980 and he is the Secretary of State for Scotland. Galashiels' town council has disappeared—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It did not disappear.

Mr. Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene, or is he merely being difficult?

Mr. Cormack: I am being accurate.

Mr. Steel: The house improvement programme has not proceeded as fast as we would have wished. I have used Galashiels as an example because it was highlighted in the report.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that 1973, when I was in the position that he described, was the greatest year that we have ever had for house improvements. There was a certain interlude after 1973 when I was not responsible for making decisions.

Mr. Steel: I do not dispute that. We have arrived at the target year and, sadly, we have not been able to cure the problem. It is a difficult technical problem, particularly in Galashiels, because of the scattered nature of the houses which have not been improved. I give that as a specific example. I could give the example of Glasgow where about 51,000 houses—16.5 per cent. of the total stock—are still below the tolerable standard, so I am not simply raising a constituency problem.
11.15 pm
At a time when the Government have taken a deliberate policy decision to cut back on new house building, are they determined to make a major drive back into house improvement of the sort that the present Secretary of State made when he was in office in a junior capacity? The answer to that question must be "No" if the Government intend to stick to the figures in the Bill, because there is no way that landlords of unimproved houses or people occupying unimproved houses will feel a strong impetus to continue with improvement, given these low levels of grant.
That is not merely a constituency view, or a Liberal Party view. COSLA has already said that the expenditure on house improvement should be reviewed annually, and that the grant limits should be raised. It also said that the Secretary of State should be more liberal in the exercise of his discretionary powers to approve applications from local authorities for grants above the permitted level for areas where large numbers of houses are below the tolerable standard. I agree with that view.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has already suggested that there will be an upward review for England

and Wales. I assume that the Scottish figures will follow suit. But, as soon as he declares that, any owner or any landlord who is contemplating improvement will put it off until the magic day when the figures are reviewed upwards.
I apologise for detaining the House at this late hour, but this is an important matter which should not be dealt with in a couple of minutes. Unless the Government are prepared to consider an uprating of the improvement grant figures, they will be failing to keep up the necessary impetus in the house improvement programme in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) has intervened in this debate, because when I spoke earlier I inadvertently, although he does not realise it, commended his amendments to the House. His intervention gives me an opportunity to clarify the Government's position.
Government amendments Nos. 185, 186 and 187 would preserve the value of the improvement grants in real terms compared with the situation in 1977, whereas the amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would double them in real terms. He can rest assured that the figures that the Government have given preserve the position and take account of the changes in cost over the last three years.
The right hon. Gentleman will also be pleased to know that, in order to assist private owners and others with their improvements, the Government, in their housing allocation in the non-housing revenue account which deals with these matters, have been able to preserve in real terms the allocation to local authorities this year compared with last year. For a number of authorities, including certain authorities in the Borders, they have increased the allocation significantly. The Government recognise the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve. Clearly it is not possible at any time to do as much as we would like, but we have indicated that this is a priority, and our amendments preserve in real terms the value of these important grants.

Mr. Steel: When the Under-Secretary speaks about "real terms", is he speaking in terms of general inflation, or does


he mean building costs? Bearing in mind the earlier intervention by the Secretary of State who condemned the previous Administration, why does he base the figures in real terms on what was happening a year or two ago when we know that the house improvement programme was not given sufficient impetus? Why not increase the figures now?

Mr. Rifkind: The question whether the house improvement scheme was given sufficient impetus does not depend on the level of the grant. It depends on the size of the allocation to local authorities. But we cannot go into that matter now.
With regard to the size of the grant, I am advised that the value in real terms is preserved compared with the value in 1977. That would be meaningless unless the grant could purchase sufficient similar facilities as would have been available in that year. At present, with the problems of levels of expenditure, that seems reasonable : In these circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that this is a perfectly appropriate level at which to be putting these grants at present.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 42, line 4, leave out from ' 1974 ' to the end of line 10 and insert
'in the definition of "owner" the words "but in Part I includes such a lessee as is mentioned in section 2(3)(a) of this Act" shall cease to have effect.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendments Nos. 184, 228, 229 and 230.

Mr. Rifkind: These are almost entirely consequential amendments. Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 simply list the repeals and alterations to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 required by the amendments already introduced. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 184, in page 42, line 10, at end add—
'(4) The Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 shall be amended as follows—

(a) insert in section 4(1), after the word "applicant", the words "and where appropriate, the owner" ;
(b) in section 7(1) leave out the words "by the owner" in both places where they appear ;

(c) in section 8—

(i) in subsection (1) the words "and in subsection (2) below" are repealed ;
(ii) subsection (2) is repealed ;

(d) in section 9—

(i) in subsection (5) in paragraph (6) the words "by a member of the agricultural population" is repealed ;
(ii) in subsection (9) for the words "owner of the house" in the second place where they appear, substitute the word "applicant" ;

(e) in section 10A(3) substitute for the word "applicant" the word "owner".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 56

MAXIMUM APPROVED EXPENSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPROVEMENT GRANT

Amedments made : No. 185, page 43, line 25, leave out ' £1,500 ' and insert ' £2,000'.

No. 186, in page 43, line 34, leave out ' £150 'and insert ' £200'.

No. 187, in page 43, line 37, leave out ' £600 ' and insert ' £800 '.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Clause 63

INTERPRETATION OF PARTS I TO III

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in page 45, line 19, leave out ' house ' and insert ' dwelling-house'.
This is a drafting amendment removing an inconsistency of wording in the terms of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 65

REPEALS

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 235, in page 46, line 3, after ' 65.' insert
'Subject to the transitional provisions contained in this Act,'.
This amendment is a technical change to the paving clause for schedule 5. It is necessary to keep alive certain existing provisions which are not to be repealed until replacement provisions in the Bill have been brought into effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

TENANCIES WHICH ARE NOT SECURE TENANCIES

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 191, in page 48, leave out lines 1 to 6.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 205.

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments change the Bill's approach to the security-of-tenure tenants living in houses leased rather than owned by the landlord. Amendment No. 191 removes the current provision in the schedule excluding from security of tenure tenants living in houses leased to landlords for use as temporary housing accommodation. The amendment will mean that tenants who do not fall into the categories mentioned will not be debarred from security of tenure on the arbitrary basis of the terms on which the landlord happens to hold the house allocated to them.

Amendment No. 205 provides for the situation in which at present it is clearly undesirable that a landlord should continue renting a particular house to a tenant if the landlord's own legal rights over the house have expired. Consequently, a ground for possession with a right to suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant is provided for in this amendment.

I think that these amendments will be acceptable to the House, and I commend them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 192, in page 48, leave out lines 17 to 29.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Schedule 2

GROUNDS FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSES LET UNDER SECURE TENANCIES.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 194, in page 49, line 21, leave out ' has ' and insert ' and his spouse have'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 195.

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments meet a point that was raised with some useful discussion in Committee. Amendment No. 194 will allow the landlord to act at once without waiting six months if he has reason to believe that the tenant is no longer using the house as his principal home. This was clearly a point of concern to the Committee.

Amendment No. 195 provides a desirable protection for spouses, which was missing in the original drafting, by providing that the landlord cannot seek possession under paragraph 5 while the tenant's husband or wife is living in the house, regardless of the tenant's absence. This is consistent with the general attitude towards the protection of the rights of resident spouses elsewhere in the Bill.

I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment Agreed to.

Amendment made : No. 195, in page 49, line 22 at end add
'or have ceased to occupy the dwelling-house as their principal home.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 196, in page 49, line 22, at end add—
'(5A) The landlord wishes to transfer the secure tenancy of the dwelling house to the spouse or former spouse of the tenant, or to a person with whom the tenant has been living as man and wife, where either the tenant or the spouse, former spouse or person aforesaid no longer wishes to live together with the other in the dwelling house, and the spouse, former spouse or person aforesaid has applied to the landlord for the transfer of the tenancy.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take also amendment No. 204, in page 49, line 35, at end insert—
'8A. The landlord requires the dwelling-house for occupation by the spouse, former spouse, or cohabitee who was resident or ordinarily resident with the tenant in the dwelling house.'.

Mr. Rifkind: Our amendment and Opposition amendment No. 204 seek to create a new ground for possession to enable authorities to deal with the problems posed by marital breakdown, in much the same way as they do now, by transferring the tenancy from one spouse to the other. They may do so if they believe that the spouse who is not the tenant


should have the right to stay in the marital home.
This matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) and by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I undertook to bring forward proposals at this stage. I emphasise that they are interim proposals, pending the final conclusion of the Scottish Law Commission, which is dealing with this issue.
The only difference between the Government amendment and the Opposition amendment is that the Opposition amendment would place an absolute obligation on the local authority to provide alternative accommodation. For the reasons that I gave in Committee, I do not feel that it is appropriate to impose such a statutory obligation at this stage. How-over, when the Scottish Law Commission brings forward its final recommendations, we shall consider them carefully. If further changes are required, an opportunity will be provided to make them.

Mr. George Robertson: This is not the time for a major debate. However, hon. Members on both sides of the House consider that the issue is important. Amendment No. 204 arises from the fact that this issue was discussed in Committee by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and for South Angus (Mr. Fraser). Those hon. Members are not here, and have not been in the Chamber for most of the day.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am here, and have been for most of the day.

Mr. Robertson: I apologise profusely. The absentees are Conservative Members. Both the hon. Member for South Angus and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South are absent.
There is a substantial difference between the two amendments. The Ministers' hon. Friends supported one of those amendments in Committee. The Minister said that he was putting forward interim proposals and that we should be able to discuss at a later stage the general issues that gave rise to concern in Committee.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I should like to thank the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking that he gave in Committee to bring forward an amendment to deal with the problem. However, I am disappointed that he has rephrased the amendment and changed its position in schedule 2. If the amendment had been included in paragraphs 7 to 12, local authorities would have been obliged to provide other suitable accommodation and to make that accommodation available to the tenant who had been dispossessed of the family home.
The Minister has included the amendment in paragraphs 1 to 6. As a result, difficulties will arise for the tenant who is dispossessed. One practical problem is that the dispossessed tenant is likely to be the tenant who does not have the children. That tenant will be regarded as a single person and will have low priority for a house. Injustice may arise.
I think that the Minister accepts the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission that matters relating to occupancy should be left to the court. However, in doing so he has let down one of the partners of the broken marriage. I can understand why he waits for a further report from the Scottish Law Commission, because this is primarily a housing matter, and not a question of procedures relating to occupancy orders. It is significant that the Finer committee and a working party of the SSHA have recommended that suitable alternative housing should be provided in the circumstances that led up to the presentation of the original amendment in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 198, in page 49, line 23, after ' tenant ', insert ' of the dwelling-house'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 199, 200, 201, 202, 203 and 205.

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments make a single change in relation to the grounds of possession relating to anti-social behaviour. They extend the scope from anti-social behaviour by adjoining occupiers to behaviour in the vicinity of the


house. This seems to be much more appropriate, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 199, in page 49, line 25, after ' conduct ', insert
'in the vicinity of the dwelling-house'.

No. 200, in page 49, line 25, leave out to adjoining occupiers'.

No. 201, in page 49, line 28, after ' tenant ', insert ' of the dwelling-house'.

No. 202, in page 49, line 30, after ' conduct ', insert
'in the vicinity of the dwelling-house'.

No. 203, in page 49, line 30, leave out ' to adjoining occupiers'.

No. 205, in page 50, line 19, at end add—
'13. The interest of the landlord in the dwelling house is that of a lessee under a lease and that lease either

(a) has terminated, or
(b) will terminate within a period of 6 months from the date of raising of proceedings for recovery of possession.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, amendment No. 207, in page 50, line 46, at end insert—
'(g) its distance from the home of any member of the tenant's family if proximity to it is essential to the wellbeing of that member or of the tenant.'.

Hon. Members: Do it formally.

Mr. Wilson: I am not sure why there is so much irritation from hon. Members tonight. We are engaged in discussing very serious business for Scotland, and as a Scottish Member I resist being pushed and pressed in any way. If I hear any more comments, I shall extend my remarks.
This is a simple amendment which would have been completed by now had I been given the opportunity. Its purpose is to add another criterion for allocation of houses relating to the distance from the home of any tenant of a member of his family if proximity is essential to the well-being of either. We are all aware of circumstances in which that criterion would save many families much distress. One must realise, of course, that there may be a shortage of houses available for that purpose.

I commend the amendment to the Minister, and I hope that he will accept it.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Member's objective and I hope to assure him that his amendment is unnecessary.
In its present form, the Bill specifies that any special needs of the tenant or his family should be taken into account in determining the suitability of alternative accommodation. The hon. Member can rest assured that the circumstances provided by his amendment are encompassed by these words, and they will enable any special needs of the tenant to be taken into account.

Mr. Wilson: I made it clear earlier that I prefer these things to be explicit rather than implicit, and I am not sure whether the definition which the Minister has given will hold water. All I can do is to ask him to say that, if experience proves that the objective is not secured by the Bill as drafted, he will seek to redress the position. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 208, in page 51, line 5, leave out ' 14 ' and insert ' 28'.
We have said before, and I say it again, that we consider a period of 14 days to be inadequate for people to consider an offer of suitable accommodation. We believe that 28 days is a more appropriate period, and we hope that the Government will give further consideration to our suggestion.

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the period of 14 days is not a statutory requirement. It is purely a minimum period. If a local authority wishes to provide for a greater length of time, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. I am sure that the hon. Member will accept that, given that this is purely discretionary, it is appropriate that the Bill should remain in its present form.

Mr. Robertson: In the hope that the hopes of the Minister are fulfilled, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3

TERMS OF SECURE TENANCY RELATING TO SUB-LETTING

Amendment made: No. 209, in page 51, leave out line 32 and insert—
'on the ground provided for in section 20(2) of this Act)'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Schedule 5

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 210, in page 54, line 4, after ' Dwellings ', insert ' Acquisition'.

No. 212, in page 54, line 15, column 3, at beginning, insert—
'In section 17(2)(b) and (3), the words "with the consent of the Secretary of State".'.

No. 213, in page 54, line 22, column 3, at end add—
'In section 177(1) the words from "artistic interest" to the end.
In section 177(2) the words ", and if required by the Secretary of State shall," and the words from ", and the authority" to the end.'.

No. 214, in page 54, line 31, column 3, at beginning insert—
'In section 5, in subsection (4), the words from the beginning to "fulfilled," and subsection (5).'.

No. 215, in page 54, line 31, column 3, leave out
', (3) and (4) ' and insert ' and in subsection
(2) the words from ' which ' to the end.'.

No. 219, in page 54, line 42, column 3, at end add—
'In section 111(1) the words "but which is not a controlled heritable security".'.

No. 216, in page 54, line 32, column 3, after ' 9,' insert
'(1). Section 24. Sections 29 and 30.'.

No. 217, in page 54, line 32, column 3, at end add—
'In section 36, the definition of "improvement".'.

No. 218, in page 54, line 34, column 3, add—
'In section 80(2) the words "(whether a controlled or regulated tenancy)".'.

No. 220, in page 54, line 51, column 3, at end add—
'Section 135(1).'.

No. 221, in page 54, line 52, column 3, at end add—

'In Schedule 3(i) in Case 5 the words from "or, in" to "1939," ; (ii) Case 6 (iii) in Case 9 the words "or as the case may be, Part V".'.

No. 222, in page 54, line 55, column 3, at end add—
'Schedules 16 and 17.
In Schedule 19, paragraphs 9, 10, 14(1)(c) and 19(1).'.

No. 223, in page 55, line 3, column 3, after ' paragraph 1 ', insert ' (1)'.

No. 224, in page 55, line 6, column 3, leave out ' in paragraph 4 ' and insert
'paragraphs 1(6) and 1(7) and 4'.

No. 225, in page 55, line 6, at end add—


'1972 c. 46.
Housing financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972.
In section 50, the definition of "controlled tenancy".'

No. 231, in page 55, line 13, at end add—


'1974 c. 51.
Rent Act 1974.
Section 1(3).'.

No. 266, in page 55, line 6, at end add—


'1972 c. 46
Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972.
In section 61(3 the words "subject to section 64 of this Act".




In section 62, in subsection (2) the words "and 64", in subsection (4) the words "or section 64(4)".




Sections 64 and 65'.

No. 227, in page 55, line 8, at end add—


'1974 c. 44
Housing Act 1974.
In section 18, in subsection (2) the words "in such form as may be prescribed" and subsection (5).'.

No. 228, in page 55, line 10, after 7 ', insert ' in subsection (1) the words "by that owner,"'.

No. 229, in page 55, line 12, column 3, at end add—
'In section 8, in subsection (1) the words "and in subsection (2) below" and subsection (2).
In section 9, in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) the words "by a member of the agricultural population".'.

No. 230, in page 55, line 13, at end add—
'In section 49(3), in the definition of "owner", the words "but in Part 1 includes such a lessee as is mentioned in section 2(3)(a) of this Act".'.

No. 232, in page 55, line 13, at end add—


'1975 c. 21
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
In Schedule 7C, in the entry relating to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966, in the first collumn, the words from "when" to the end of the column.'

—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Johnston: It is perfectly proper that an extremely important piece—

Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. Member has not been present during the debate.

Mr. Johnston: I have been here all night. I would also point out to the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who is interrupting from a sedentary position on the Opposition Front Bench, that I was here at 2 o'clock this morning. I see no reason, simply because the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make rude objections from a sedentary position, why I should be denied the opportunity to make a contributioin on an important piece of Scottish legislation.
The House will recall that the Liberal Party voted for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Typical.

Mr. Johnston: In speaking in that debate, I made it clear that we had significant reservations and, unless these were met in Committee, we could not support Third Reading—

Mr. Orme: Changed their mind again.

Mr. Johnston: If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen persist in interrupting, I

shall merely speak for longer. I do not intend to be intimidated.
I remind the House of what I said on 14 January, in concluding my speech on Second Reading :
The Secretary of State talked about absolute rights to purchase. I do not believe that there are absolute rights that are not necessarily conditioned by responsibilities to the community. One has also to protect the rural situation … Without these changes we cannot support the Bill is whole despite the fact that we accept the idea of sale in principle and welcome the proposals contained in other parts of the Bill."—[Official Report, 14 January 1980 ; Vol. 976, c. 1275.]
That remains our position.
The broad object of the Bill is radical. I compliment the Government on that. I welcome the intention of creating conditions in Scotland in which individual house ownership can be greatly extended. I believe that the proportion of public sector housing in Scotland is excessive. I accept that dramatic action is necessary to change the position. However, I do not accept that an across-the-board approach, which ignores existing housing needs and demands, and in the rural context ignores fundamental social criteria, is the right and just way to proceed. That fundamental flaw leads me, with regret, to vote against the Bill, although I am entirely in favour of the principle of council house sales, and accept the constructive character of much of the remainder of the Bill.

Mr. David Steel: I am moved to speak on Third Reading only by the utterly intolerant attitude of some right hon. and hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I have always felt that if one wanted a vote in favour of devolution in this House, the time to have it is in the middle of the night on the Report stage of a Scottish Bill. That is the time when English and Welsh Members are most sympathetic. I do not approve of the legislative procedures of this House, but we are stuck with them.
Those right hon. and hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies should not be rude and intolerant, failing to listen to those of us who are concerned about the issues. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) had heard what the right hon. Member for


Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said from a sedentary position, he would be equally angry. The right hon. Gentleman has no cause to be pleased with the record of the Labour Government on improvement grants. If he had the housing in his constituency that I still have in mine, he would not say that it is an Adjournment debate matter when we are dealing with the level of improvement grants in Scotland. With his supposed record of social concern, he should recognise that I am attempting to speak for those who find it difficult to raise the money to improve their homes. That is why I put down an amendment.
Basically, I agree with what my hon. Friend says. The principle behind the Bill is good. The criticism of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made to me by local authorities is that he has been insufficiently flexible in listening to their representations on the financial implications of the Bill. He has not been willing to give local authorities the jurisdiction that they should have to consider the housing needs in their areas. What is good for Glasgow or Dundee is not necessarily good for Selkirkshire. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been wrong in trying to impose a uniform system throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
The problem concerns not only the financial implications. Despite the long debate yesterday on the impact on rural areas, there are still deep anxieties about

the effects of the Bill on housing stocks in rural areas and the ability of people to acquire council housing in the rural areas when they retire and leave tied cottages. Although I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that he will look again at the restoration of buildings and conservation areas, there is no clear commitment to review the issue.

For these reasons, it is right that we should oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is significant that at the end of this debate a large number of hon. Members from English constituencies show interest in Scottish housing. Had there been a Scottish Assembly or Parliament, such a Bill would not have come before it. The Government have refused to listen to the observation that the Bill is unbalanced and will cause disadvantage to the housing stock.

Mr. McQuarrie: Rubbish.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in that. He can speak for himself in the debate.
The Government do not have a mandate for the measure. Its terms are unacceptable to the people of Scotland.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time :—

The House divided : Ayes 272, Noes 214.

Division No. 360]
AYES
[11.45 pm


Adley, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter
Cranborne, Viscount


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Alexander, Richard
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Tom
Buck, Antony
Dover, Denshore


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nick
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bulmer, Esmond
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Burden, F. A.
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Butcher, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butler, Hon Adam
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Eggar, Timothy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Emery, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Eyre, Reginald


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Best, Keith
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fairgrleve, Russell


Bevan, David Gilroy
Channon, Paul
Faith, Mrs Shella


Biggs-Davison, John
Chapman, Sydney
Farr, John


Blackburn, John
Churchill, W. S.
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Clegg, Sir Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Cockeram, Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Sir Bernard
Colvin, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bright, Graham
Cope, John
Fox, Marcus


Brinton, Tim
Cormack, Patrick
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Brittan, Leon
Corrie, John
Fry, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Costain, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Raigate)




Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Glyn, Dr Alan
McQuarrie, Albert
Rossi, Hugh


Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gow, Ian
Major, John
Scott, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marland, Paul
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marlow, Tony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gray, Hamish
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Greenway, Harry
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Grieve, Percy
Mates, Michael
Silvester Fred


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mather, Carol
Sims, Roger


Grist, Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Gummer, John Salwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speller, Tony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Stanley, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Steen, Anthony


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stevens, Martin


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hawksley, Warren
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Hayhoo, Barney
Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Heddle, John
Monro, Hector
Tapsell, Peter


Henderson, Barry
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moore, John
Tebbit, Norman


Hill, James
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Thompson, Donald


Hooson, Tom
Mudd, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hordern, Peter
Murphy, Christopher
Thornton, Malcolm


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Myles, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Eexleyheath)


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Needham, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Jessel, Toby
Nott, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wall, Patrick


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Walter, Gary


Kimball, Marcus
Parkinson, Cecil
Walters, Dennis


King, Rt Hon Tom
Parris, Mathew
Ward, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Warren, Kenneth


Knox, David
Patten, John (Oxford)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lamont, Norman
Pattle, Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Lang, Ian
Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John


Langtord-Holt, Sir John
Pollock, Alexander
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lawrence, Ivan
Porter, George
Whitney, Raymond


Lawson, Nigel
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Wickenden, Keith


Lee, John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wilkinson, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Proctor, K. Harvey
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ralson, Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Loveridge, John
Rathbone, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lyell, Nicholas
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Younger, Rt Hon George


McCrindle, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Macfarlane, Neil
Rhodes James, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


MacGregor, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Anthony Berry and


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Spencer, Le Marchant.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Parnham)
Rifkind, Malcolm





NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crowther, J. S.


Adams, Allen
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Cryer, Bob


Alton, David
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Campbell, lan
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davidson, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cartwright, John
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Beith, A. J.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Deakins, Eric


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cohen, Stanley
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Coleman, Donald
Dempsey, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Dewar, Donald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Conlan, Bernard
Dixon, Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Robin F.
Debson, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Cowans, Harry
Dermand, Jack


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Douglas, Dick







Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dubs, Alfred
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robertson, George


Dunnetl, Jack
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Eastham, Ken
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lambie, David
Ryman, John


English, Michael
Lamborn, Harry
Sever, John


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Ewing, Harry
Lolthouse, Geoffrey
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Field, Frank
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)


Fitch, Alan
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Silverman, Julius


Flannery, Martin
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Snape, Peter


Ford, Ben
McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Magee, Bryan
Spriggs, Leslie


Foulkes, George
Marks, Kenneth
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Strang, Gavin


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Straw, Jack


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maxton, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Graham, Ted
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tilley, John


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Walkins, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Newens, Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wellbeloved, James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ogden, Eric
Welsh, Michael


Haynes, Frank
O'HaMoran, Michael
White, Frank R.(Bury & Radcliffe)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Neill, Martin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Whitlock, William


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Home Robertson, John
Park, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Homewood, William
Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Horam, John
Pendry, Tom
Woolmer, Kenneth


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Penhallgon, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Howells, Geraint
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wright, Shella


Huckfield, Les
Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton East)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Race, Reg



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Janner, Hon Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson, Jo
Mr. George Morton.


John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED PERSONS (MANCHESTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Mr. Ken Eastham: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for kindly agreeing to give me time on the Floor of the House to raise a special issue, namely, the centre for the educationally disadvantaged, the only one of its kind in the country, which is located in the city of Manchester.
Prior to entering this House as a Member of Parliament, I was the chairman of the Manchester education com-

mittee, which naturally gives me an added interest. But I wish initially to state that I am not making a special plea for a Manchester-run education establishment because, as the Department knows full well, this project is a separate entity supported by numerous interested organisations. I also have the fullest support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), in whose constituency the unit is located.
The subject has been an issue of much concern and, indeed, anger, with many people feeling let down after placing so much effort, support and good will into what is considered by many knowledgeable people in education, including many non-political personalities, to be a most worthy and essential education development. If we are to attempt to encourage


higher standards of education and fairer opportunities for all children, this is the type of project to command respect and support.
As the Minister is aware, I wrote to him on 19 December 1979 relative to this matter, and it was only finally on 17 May 1980 that I received a considered reply. It stated that due to the economic climate it was not intended to keep the centre open. That was in line with the Secretary of State's final statement made on 6 May this year.
The letter went on to say that the Minister wished to stress the continued importance attached to the work of combating educational disadvantage and even stated that
the concept and practice of identifying and assisting pupils with special needs has been an established feature of our educational system.
What is more, it was even recognised that for local authorities there was much to be done in that area. It was a depressing statement expressing a contradiction of values. If the work is so valuable—as seems to be recognised in the correspondence—surely it should merit a high priority in money values as well. That is the basis of my submission.
I turn now to the historical background of the establishment. A White Paper, Cmnd. 5720, was published in August 1974, and I quote from it :
To establish an information centre independent of the Department of Education and Science concerned with giving advice on curriculum, teaching methods, etc and on good practice generally relevant to the education of the disadvantaged and immigrants.
In January 1975 Mr. Fiske, the chief education officer of Manchester, was approached and asked if Manchester education committee would be able to help with the provision of premises. In April of that year the education committee offered No. 11 Anson Road, a site adjacent to the city of Manchester college of higher education. The offer was accepted in July by the governing body which had been established and which had held its first meeting on 7 January. The then Secretary of State authorised the appointment of a seconded HMI, Mr. Colin Roberts, as the first director. Upon taking up his post in December of that year, temporary accommodation was afforded to him by the local authority until Anson Road was available.
The establishment consists of a house and temporary hutted accommodation. The site was bought for £15,000 and the building work cost £56,000, which is currently valued at £92,000 for insurance purposes. Manchester education committee is the landlord and the governors are the tenants paying a rental of £3,500 plus rates of approximately £3,000. I wish to add that the city council welcomed the centre, which has provided about 30 jobs in the inner city area and has also encouraged regular visitors to the city.
The work of the centre has steadily progressed since starting with a staff of five. Educational work, however, did not begin until September 1976. The centre, therefore, had had a life of little more than three years when, in November 1979, decisions were being firmed up to close the centre.
I fully realise that the cost of the centre is met by the Department of Education and Science by direct allocation. The expenditure for the year 1979–80 was £235,000, which I believe is a small price to pay from the national education budget.
It is important that we appreciate that the centre was conceived as an information centre and not as a place to solve the problems of educational disadvantage. As was recognised at a one-day conference in London, nobody in the education world had any doubt that the problems of disadvantage were wide ranging. There are, therefore, no quick or easy solutions, and the centre is faced with a major challenge.
Various statements about the closure of the centre must not be allowed to pass without comment. In a parliamentary answer on 22 May, the Secretary of State listed 25 educational bodies with executive and/or advisory functions for which he had some responsibility—the quango list. They included the centre.
In November 1979, without any previous consultation, the Secretary of State announced that he had decided to cease funding the centre and that it would wind up in August 1980. His letter to the governors said that the centre had not wholly fulfilled expectations and had been disappointing in many ways, adding that it was not likely that it was providing value for money. It was only after that letter that the Secretary of State met


representatives in December to consider their protests, and he promised to review his decision. At a further meeting in April 1980, the right hon. and learned Gentleman met Mr. Max Morris, the acting chairman of the governors, and advised him that he was minded to confirm his previous decision. That brings us up to the Secretary of State's confirmation in May.
It has been claimed that the Secretary of State has acted on advice, but the source and nature of the advice has never been identified. It can be said that no HMI advice to close the centre has been given. I therefore challenge the decision as not being on education grounds. I also strongly criticise the fact that no advance warning of the possible closure was mooted. That denied the possibility of alternative funding.
The Secretary of State has said that he will continue some provision which will be channelled through HMIs and the Department's educational disadvantage unit. Is it not a fact that currently part of the time of only one HMI is assigned to that work and that the overall establishment of inspectors is being reduced? The educational unit, which was established in 1975, consists. I understand, of two or three civil servants and the same single part-time HMI.
It is claimed that in five years the unit has not produced one publication or any visible evidence of its existence to those who work outside the DES. How can it possibly fill the void when the Manchester information centre closes?
I recall that in December 1979, the AMA education committee, with a Conservative majority, passed the following resolution :
This meeting requests the Secretary of State to open discussions with the local authority associations concerning the future of the centre. It is recognised that Her Majesty's Government plans to curtail public expenditure, but this meeting considers that adequate consultation about the place of this body in the pattern of education should take place before any decision is made.
Apart from a brief discussion on 31 January this year, nothing was done to take action on that request.
The Secretary of State said in his letter to the governors on 6 May that his decision
is coloured by our greater understanding in 1980 of the complex demand embodied in the

rather broad hopes expressed for the centre in 1975.
What is that "greater understanding" and how has it been achieved? The governors are baffled by the whole affair.
As for the timetabling of the closure, I find the period of notice rather brutal for the staff who will inevitably be made redundant if the centre closes. Surely 31 December 1980 would be a more reasonable date on which to close the project.
I make no secret of the fact that I am greatly offended when additional funding has been authorised by the Government for privileged education, irrespective of the so-called financial climate. That is, I believe, a serious flaw in the justification given by the Secretary of State for rejecting our appeal. Those are not comments of envy, but hard facts that many fair-minded people cannot avoid recognising.
I have always considered education as an investment for the future. We are discussing a classical case where our speculation will be practically guaranteed. At a time when the jobless figures are piling up, we are seeing people who have been carrying out valuable work being casually thrown aside. Human values should still be of paramount importance to any decent Government. I warn the Government that, after three years of so-called unparalleled austerity, it will not work if they again turn on the tap of financial give-aways 12 months before the next general election. The old and the young alike are on the Government's hit list, while at the same time worthless elements in society are reaping big profits and making massive overseas investments which do not create more jobs.
When we compare the cutbacks in education, books of learning, music and culture with the apparent jingoism in armaments and certain elements of law, we begin seriously to worry. Every man of my age can look back to the 1930s when similar things were taking place on the Continent, with all the dreadful consequences for the rest of the world. I recognise who are the paymasters for most of the media in Britain, but I feel that editors have some moral responsibility at least to attempt to give a balance to help save a nation that is rapidly losing its way.
There is still time for the Minister to review his stand on this matter. It would


not in any way be a loss of face if he were to show a change of heart on such a worthy and commendable project.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) for raising this subject. I hope that his comments and the comments that I shall make will help to clear up some of the observations and innuendo that have appeared in some of the specialist education journals in the past few weeks. He brings a special expertise to the House, having been a chairman of the Manchester education committee. I respect his opinion and his views.
I wish to add to the historical and factual background of the centre, which I hope will put some gloss on the comments made by the hon. Gentleman, which more or less coincide with my understanding of the creation of the centre. It was established by the previous Labour Government as part of their response to a report by the all-party Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. Their intention, set out in a White Paper issued at that time, was to establish a source of information and advice on curriculum and teaching methods for the disadvantaged which would draw together the results of research and development by other bodies, and which would disseminate information and advice on such work to local education authorities and teachers.
Before establishing the centre, the then Government discussed the matter widely with the local authority and teacher associations, and the matter was also discussed during the course of a national conference on educational disadvantage in April 1975. One of the main points made repeatedly by those consulted and at the conference was that the centre should not launch out into vast schemes, and that it would have a valuable role by simply acting as a clearing house for information about existing good practices by schools and teachers in combating educational disadvantage.
With that last intention very much in mind, the centre was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) later in 1975 in Man-

By the time that we took office last year, it had grown considerably and had a staff complement of 32. The cash limit on its budget for 1979–80 was £312,000.
The chairman of the centre's governors from its foundation until he retired due to ill health in March 1979 was Sir Alec Clegg. I am sure that previous education Ministers would wish to join me in using this opportunity to pay a sincere tribute to the very considerable work which Sir Alec did over many years to help the educationally disadvantaged. I hope that his health will improve. Since last April the acting chairman of the centre has been Mr. Max Morris, and I should like to recognise the voluntary efforts which he and his fellow governors have made to pursue the aims of the centre.
This brings us to last May. As hon. Members will know, one of the things that we immediately set in hand when we assumed office was a review of quangos. Our aims in that review—the outcome of which was published in a White Paper in January—were to identify those non-governmental bodies that perform functions relevant to national need which are not undertaken by other statutory agencies ; those bodies which have the necessary degree of public accountability ; and, most importantly, those bodies which are really effective in carrying out their allotted functions and which are thus providing real value for money.
One of our conclusions as part of that review was that in the present economic climate we could not justify the continued expenditure of public money on keeping the centre open. My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the centre's governors telling them of this conclusion, and he announced it in the House on 15 November last year.
I should like now to turn to some points raised by the hon. Gentleman in the course of his remarks.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Macfarlane: I should like to continue with this point. I shall give way very briefly, but a number of important points were raised and I want to deal with them.
Let me turn now to some of the reasons why we decided to close the centre. No


self-governing organisation which is financed from public funds has an automatic right to stay in existence for ever. Each organisation must be able to justify its existence through its record and by inspiring confidence that it can achieve its main aim. In this case, my right hon. and learned Friend concluded that the expectations raised when the centre was first mooted were not matched by its performance. With hindsight, perhaps, we can see that the broad hopes expressed when the establishment of a centre was being considered could hardly be met.
Educational disadvantage, as Labour Members will readily recognise, is a very complex issue, and over the last five years there has been a growing awareness of that complexity—not least by he 105 local education authorities of England and Wales. The grand hope that we could claw our way to a new understanding of this issue by having a centre such as the one in Manchester has not been fulfilled, and, I might say in retrospect, possibly could not be fulfilled.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Macfarlane: Other factors were, of coarse, weighed in the balance. The Secretary of State had taken into account the real difficulties which arise when a centre of this sort is established. There was the appointment of suitable professional staff—this is very important when one considers the numbers there—and the accumulation of information about good practice. In making a judgment about the record of the centre and its future my right hon. and learned Friend had to make allowance for those difficulties.

Mr. Morris: rose——

Mr. Macfarlane: On the other side of the scales—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) will contain herself, I shall try to advance some of the reasons as I get into my speech. The more sedentary observations there are, the less likely am I to get to those reasons. I hope that the hon. Lady will therefore contain herself, and that hon. Gentlemen will also try to do the same.
In making a judgment about the record of the Centre and its future, my right hon. and learned Friend had to make allowance for those difficulties. On the other

side of the scales, the present economic climate had to be taken into account. We cannot afford to fund organisations if we cannot be confident that they will achieve their main aims. But it is this last point—confidence in future achievements—that is paramount.

Mr. Morris: rose——

Mr. Macfarlane: I want also at this stage to draw to the attention of the House the Government's continuing interest in matters relating to educational disadvantage. [Interruption.] The clossure of the centre does not mean that the Government have lost interest in work to combat educational disadvantage—far from it. Through the work of the inspectorate and the educational disadvantage unit in the Department, we shall continue—[Interruption.]—to be involved in these matters.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Morris: Why not?

Mr. Macfarlane: I have not said that I shall not give way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have only asked hon. Members to be a little patient so that I can answer some of the points. I hope that they will be patient.
Through the work of the inspectorate and of the educational disadvantage unit in the Department, we shall continue to be involved in these matters. There is no intention of appointing additional civil servants to undertake the work of the centre or of building up within the Department an advice service to individual local authorities and teachers. But at national level we shall remain involved in and concerned about all aspects of work to combat educational disadvantage.
Perhaps I can give one example of this—the educational needs of ethnic minorities. Just before the last general election, the Labour Government started to set up an independent committee of inquiry to look into the education needs and attainments of children from all ethnic minority groups. We have taken over where the previous Government left off. Last year we settled the terms of reference of the committee, provided it with a secretariat and encouraged it to


consider as a matter of urgency what practical steps should be taken to meet the education needs of children of West Indian origin.

Mr. Morris: rose——

Mr. Macfarlane: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.
I understand that the committee is working at a cracking pace to produce an interim report by the end of the year. I hope that that will be some source of solace to Labour Members. It is not only the committee's speed that I welcome. I am pleased that for the first time we have a committee commissioned by the Government that is considering the education of children from ethnic minority groups.

Mr. Marks: Should not the Secretary of State await the report that will be produced at the end of the year before closing down the centre? Has he any evidence from educationists or from HMIs in his Department that it was not giving value for money and not fulfilling expectations?

Mr. Macfarlane: The better part of a year has elapsed since the decision was taken. My right hon. and learned Friend consulted fully with a wide range of individuals who were involved. There were numerous discussions—

Mr. Morris: rose——

Mr. Macfarlane: —with numerous representatives from the agencies that were involved. I must tell the House that only three of the 105 education authorities saw fit to make an approach in defence of the centre. That is interesting. It also applies to HMIs.

Mr. Morris: rose——

Mr. Macfarlane: No, I must get on. The existence of the committee is a clear indication of our continuing concern for those who face educational disadvantage. We look to education authorities to play a fundamental role, but it is not the only role. There has to be departmental funding to meet the education needs, especially language needs, of Vietnamese refugees in reception centres, research projects related to the disadvantaged and the general work of the inspectorate in these areas. All these

projects indicate that we remain concerned and involved with the work that local education authorities undertake and should undertake for those who are educationally disadvantaged for whatever reason.

Mr. Morris: rose——

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman raised an important issue when he talked about consultation with the CED governors—

Mr. Morris: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Morris: The Minister said that he would give way.

Mr. Macfarlane: Prior to my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement—

Mr. Morris: He said that he would give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Minister is intending to give way, he will indicate that that is his intention.

Mr. Morris: You heard him say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he would give way to me.

Mr. Macfarlane: The only approach that my right hon. and learned Friend received from the centre's governors was a request for a speedy decision to end the uncertainty about the centre's future.

Mr. Morris: rose——

Mr. Macfarlane: I have said that I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. There are another five minutes before the debate ends. Timing is all important.
My right hon. and learned Friend therefore judged it right that the centre should close at the earliest opportunity rather than create further delays and uncertainties by waiting for further consultations. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend subsequently met representatives from the governors at their request on 5 December and discussed the centre's work for over two hours. There was some agreement among those present at that meeting that the centre had made a slow start. The governors were requesting an act of faith in its future achievements. At the end of the meeting my right hon. and learned Friend agreed to give


further thought to the centre's future and invited the governors to send him any other information that they considered relevant. I think that the House will agree that a wide degree of consultation has taken place.
Earlier this year the governors submitted a detailed document describing the work currently being undertaken by the centre and arguing for its continuation. My right hon. and learned Friend considered the document carefully along with other representations made to him about the centre, including some from Labour Members. After a great deal of thought he was minded to confirm his original decision on closure. Before doing so, he decided to have yet a further meeting with the acting chairman of the centre's governors, Mr. Morris. That meeting took place on 24 April. The centre's future was discussed for about one and a half hours.

Mr. Morris: The Minister has made a long speech seeking to justify the closure of the centre, but he has not identified the criteria on which the Secretary of State has based the decision to close the centre. Will he respond to the valuable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), when he said that the decision to close the centre is not supported by any member of Her Majesty's inspectorate for education? Will the Minister give us an undertaking that if he does not accept our arguments he will come to Manchester and observe at first hand the work that the centre is doing?

Mr. Macfarlane: I have not made a long speech. I started to speak up only 11 or 12 minutes ago, and I have given way twice.
The widest consultations took place, both with the acting chairman and the governors, and with the inspectors and Department officials. Those involved with the work of the centre acknowledge freely that perhaps it got off to a slow start, and that its terms of reference and direction did not achieve the sort of work that the then Administration were seeking. We now look to local authorities, to the Rampton committee of inquiry, and to a host of other agencies to provide the important back-up for this work.
After those consultations, my right hon. and learned Friend finally wrote to Mr. Morris on 6 May, saying that after careful consideration of all the points put to him he had decided that his original decision about closure should stand.
The centre's governors have made much about the advice that was received from civil servants and Her Majesty's inspectors, and about the process by which the decision to close the centre was taken. In my view, this is not a central issue, because the decision to set up the centre was an administrative one, taken by the previous Administration. The decision to close the centre is similarly an administrative one. In such cases it is not the practice to make public the advice received from officials and inspectors, and my right hon. and learned Friend docs not propose to adopt a new practice in this instance. The closure decision was not taken lightly or without regret, particularly as regards the future careers of the staff of the centre. The issue was considered from many points of view, particularly in relation to the need for the Government to have confidence in the centre's ability to meet its aims. The Secretary of State could not place that confidence in the centre, and that was crucial in the matter.
I wish to speak briefly about the staff at the centre. First, I strongly reiterate the statements which my right hon. and learned Friend has made in the House and in correspondence with the centre's governors. He has made it clear that his decision about closure, and the reasons he set out for that decision were not intended to deprecate in any way the work of the centre's staff.
Secondly, I should like to make it perfectly clear that the centre's governors—not my right hon. and learned Friend—are the staff's employers. Thus, it is for the governors to determine, in the first instance the arrangements which need to be made for the staff arising from the centre's closure. However, in so far as those arrangements would involve expenditure above the normal amount of grant aid available to the centre until the end of August, they will need to be agreed by my right hon and learned Friend. He has made it clear that he will look sympathetically at the proposal


which the governors put forward. Such proposals have—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half

an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.